Slashdot Mirror
Digital IDs Needed To End 'Mob Rule' Online, Says UK's Security Minister (independent.co.uk)
Digital IDs should be brought in to end online anonymity that permits "mob rule" and lawlessness online, the security minister of United Kingdom has said. From a report: Ben Wallace said authentication used by banks could also by employed by internet firms to crack down on bullying and grooming, as he warned that people had to make a choice between "the wild west or a civilised society" online. He also took aim at the "phoniness" of Silicon Valley billionaires, and called for companies such as WhatsApp to contribute to society over the negative costs of their technology, such as end-to-end encryption. It comes after Theresa May took another step against tech giants, saying they would be ordered to clamp down on vile attacks against women on their platforms. The prime minister will target firms such as Facebook and Twitter as she makes the pitch at the G7 summit this weekend, where she will urge social media firms to treat violent misogyny with the same urgency as they do terror threats. Mr Wallace told The Times: "A lot of the bullying on social media and the grooming is because those people know you cannot identify them. It is mob rule on the internet. You shouldn't be able to hide behind anonymity."
UK's security minister needs to go bugger a diseased goat, says anyone who's not an authoritarian skumbag...
That way it will be easier to track down Islamophobes and put them in jail. Good move UK.
*Slow clap*
His plan to make everyone who uses the Internet "show papers" aside, his commentary about the hypocrisy of Silicon Valley billionaires is to the point.
But the solution to this isn't LESS privacy, it's MORE privacy, if anything.
Completely inappropriate.
May as well be putting barcodes on our arms or for us all to wear a yellow star... and most of us know how well thase worked.
Digital ID's needed for all - so we can arrest Twitter users speaking out against the State.
Sounds farfetched? The UK is doing that today.
I mean, they do that already without digital ID"s, but it would save the police state a lot of time and bother if they could have the address pop up alongside the reported thought crim... er I mean tweet.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Some of the biggest trolls on the internet are not the kiddies on 4chan or the infamous "alt-right", but the leftists, progressives, and their minions.
He wants his 18th century security ideas back.
Hey, King George was on the phone, he had some ideas about stamp taxes, too. You might like those. Are you interested, Mr Security Minister?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Really? You're using that as an excuse to force digital IDs on the people?
There's real bullying going on in the real world, where we know the face and name of the aggressor and a lot of the time, NOTHING is done anyway and often the victim is the one being blamed or gets punished, like being "removed" from school to avoid being in contact with their bullies... while the bully is still able to go to school without any issues.
So really, it ain't gonna solve ANYTHING.
like forcing folks to to give the government something to target if you say something they disagree with. :|
The only way to enforce privacy is by keeping the ability to be anonymous, whether by paying cash or not having an "Internet ID."
The cat's out of the bag. How are you going to stop swarms, PGP, TOR? Free and anonymous speech and transfer of data is necessary for advanced societies and probably can't be effectively denied by legislation. That's what the network was designed for.
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
for MI5, MI6 and the GCHQ to keep track of all the innovative US tech people in the UK and Ireland like to use online.
What could return the internet to a 1970's phone exchange? Every dwelling gets an internet, an ip for that dwelling and it has an ISP paper billing address on it?
How to ensure every internet user in the UK has an IP connected to one ISP?
To return to a phone network all over the UK with all UK social media use returning to an approved ip range and a dwelling.
Let the great network begin. Nation building. To place a network from a government network exchange to each dwelling.
The government will build racks what will hold network cards in a secure local location. Every home shall have one network card back at the government network rack.
The government network cards will be able to provide voice and network services in a asymmetric or symmetric way to the dwelling depending on the ISP option selected.
One network card, one network connection, one registered account in a dwelling.
The security services can then get a direct connection into any connected computer at the end of this one connection.
All other networks will not be approved.
Any people using the internet to make political comments about government policy can be quickly found.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
because free speech is human nature, people have opinions and they are going to express them, like me for example i dont trust religion and consider them meddlesome and divisive, and i dont trust government and consider them fascistic and runs on mostly treachery
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
A site that requires registration of a truly, opensource, non Government controlled unique identity that voluntarily uses such a (to be developed) technology would attract the people who want to contribute while allowing the trolls to bottom feed at the sites that don't. Soon after all these non-conforming sites will dry up when all they have are bottom feeders.
Government mandates like this never work, but as we also all know, its not about making people civil, it about more control.
Be cautions.
Off you be fucking, Mr Wallace, off you be fucking.
Theresa May is now a leftist? lolwut?
Provided this is coupled with significant privacy
Hahahahaha. You’re not that naive are you?
But what about the children?
In GOD we trust, all others we monitor.
free speech reforms
Hahahaha, yeah we'll get right on that after we're finished locking up every random twitter user who's ever tweeted something disparaging about a muslim.
When it tries to claim that certain domestic politicians don't officially exist:
https://www.independent.co.uk/...
even to the extent of imprisoning people who mention his name, it has lost any authority to comment on what might be fake news.
What a bunch of Hypocrites, Right!, Any government! will take care of things. Didn't we just read about "Unresolved Login Issue Prevented Florida 'Concealed Weapon' Background Checks For Over a Year" does that not prove the government is usually not part of the solution to problems?
;)
I know that was the only time government failed, NOT!
Just my 2 cents
When Trump hears of this and announces his new plan he will roast the Brits for stealing his idea.
Why is Snark Required?
Or at least that is what the people on the top want the rest of us to believe. An authoritarian's ideal structure is one with a small number at the top and the rest of the people on the bottom. Online communication is the most profound change to society in the last few centuries, perhaps in all of human history. So of course authoritarian-leaning people want to be the gatekeepers to it.
Fear mongering would be telling you that we'll have a lawless wild west if we don't quickly transfer authority to a central entity. As if this is an either or scenario.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
The English are already boring enough, do we really need to stamp out all character and enforce conformity. Online trolling would be acceptable free speech if following the liberal harm principles.
What I do know is that these actions would stifle democracy. I have been permanent AC since the Snowden leaks. I'm sure I could be tracked regardless. I'm not a trouble maker or law breaker, I just want a bit of privacy and to be able to control who is listening to what I have to say.
I used to engage in long political discussions and felt as if I was participating within the social wheels behind democracy. Now I don't trust governments and keep to myself, which is making me more anarcho-libertarian than I would otherwise have been. I think these policy makers should be careful of the unintended consequences of their ideas.
I also think incel hate speech is usually only within make only echo chambers while almost every day I am reading mainstream news articles written by mostly women and people who identify as diverse attacking older white men. When I change the language around to be targeted at them the articles are sexiet and racist. This used to make me really angry, generating feelings they are trying to confirm because I felt I was being attacked for who I was. This gives me both empathy to their cause now but also strong concern. I really do feel identity politics serves to split the populace and stop them uniting and allow existing power structures to maintain control. Trump is a good example of this. He is in power because of identity politics.
Identity politics is mob rule. Because you try and engage even politely with a feminist (to be fair, feminists who believe in equality are fine, I mean the she feminazi troll kind) as a man, your voice and opinion do not count because of who you are. It's just the same oppression by a different set of scum bags.
My partner and I are a team so of course I want what is best for her and I think many modern men believe that too. We won't always see eye to eye. That's called individuality and that's a good thing.
The more the western countries strengthen their authority the less scary the rise of China becomes. We are loosing the moral high ground with respect to freedom. Stories everyday on Slashdot alone confirm this. China implements facial recognition in schools. So do US schools... China's great firewall blocks and censors content. The UK can't wait to control everything their subjects view.
The sooner we automate more structures of governance and remove social and moral issues from politics the better. There are already laws that sufficiently govern what societies deem as crimes and for the most part they are working.
There are enough reports of hackers being arrested (people who know what the fuck they are doing) that I really struggle to believe more surveillance of the digital world is justified.
Child probably rings are disgusting and politicians historically should be wary to call the kettle black. I would support death penalties for these depraved human beings over the incursion in to innocent citizens lives. We know that rape and pedophilia are most often crimes committed within real life social circles (especially within the family), stranger danger is a very very small percentage of these kinds of crimes.
With respect to mass surveillance, you can not have a functioning democracy when the government already knows the answer to the question.
You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you?
Amazing. Everything you wrote. Is untrue.
Since when do Muslims represent âoeThe Stateâ in the UK?
Really not been keeping up on the UK, have you. Sad.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
... I thought for sure it was going to be in the name of protecting us from child porn, not online bullying.
The notion, espoused by some, that this will help envisions an internet in which everything everyone does is indelibly stamped with the ID of whoever said it, requested it, bought it, etc., as if that will make the realm of online, digital reality akin to real life. BUT in order for THAT to be true, you would need a society in which you walk around with a shirt, a hat, and pants anywhere you go, emblazoned with your serial number, so that the cameras, or anyone with a notepad can record everything you say and do. Nowhere on Earth has seen a whole nation-state get THAT bad, that INSANE with the progress of their surveillance state, except maybe North Korea, and that is just speculation. The idea would make online or digital interactions even LESS free, more restrictive than real life, and for WHAT?!? So people will not get their feelings hurt? So no one will be able to say mean things online? The cure here looks far worse than the disease.
Our reign has gone on long enough. Indeed. Summon the meteors.
You just linked to a major national newspaper "mentioning the name" of your supposed unperson. More than "mentioning" it, in fact - it's the focus of a whole story, headline and all.
When you can link to a story about the editorial staff of The Independent being jailed for that, then you'll maybe have a talking point that isn't complete fantasy. Right now all you have is a link to a story that directly contradicts everything you wrote.
Every few years, someone comes out with a social thing for forum thing or whatever, and they insist that using "real" names will make people better-behaved. Every time they are proven wrong. People we well-behaved in small groups, people are not well-behaved in large groups. Full stop. There's surely a marginal size where knowing who people are will make a difference, like when you grow from 50,000 people to 100,000 people maybe, but "online" or "The Internet" are far far far beyond that region, so it doesn't matter.
This isn't just a problem in online forums. I've seen it in workplaces, a workplace with under a thousand people can feel fairly homey and interconnected and grounded, 5,000 people starts to get a little dicey but workable, but when you get up to like 25,000 people, even with the best intentions things routinely get out of control and mobs are always forming. It's not only that people fell they can get away with stuff, it's that people stop standing up for what's right. In a smaller group, when someone gets drunk at a company event and starts making an ass of themselves, unrelated people step up and usher them out. In a larger group, everyone feels like they aren't responsible for the group, so nobody steps up, and the asshole just keeps on going until something horrible happens.
if all the children grow a pair we'll die out as a species.
Nullius in verba
Its all free speech until the SAS van pulls up. Then its gets all 1980's Ireland.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Its the UK. No freedom of speech. No freedom after speech. The GCHQ keeps the UK internet to sort.
"GCHQ collected information from every visible user on the internet" (25 September 2015 )
https://www.independent.co.uk/...
"IP addresses could be cross-referenced with other data" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Once we give them that power over the internet, it will need to be replaced wholesale with a TRULY dark internet, which works for them, because they mostly just want to ensure the continuance of the status quo, while themselves having access to 'undocumented' channels to illegal wares.
Keep in mind UK Parliament is the one that had a non-trivial pedophile ring abusing its authority to sexual abuse children for 30+ years, had it covered up by MI5, then destroyed evidence and tried to pretend it didn't exist/never happened because all the evidence of the misdeeds was gone, despite individuals who investigated it for years, at significant damage to their professional careers, in order to bring it to light because what they had been doing to children while leveraging their positions of authority was so offensive that it had to be followed through on no matter the cost.
Centralized Authority is there for one purpose: to keep centralized authority in power. Sometimes it may help correct neglect/abuses at the local level, but that is simply necessary makework to help cover its true purpose as the pedestal for authoritarians to climb so that they may be above the law.
Digital IDs should be brought in to end online anonymity that permits "mob rule" and lawlessness online
What... Like the fact when voting during an election, your vote is supposed to be anonymous
The secret ballot is a voting method in which a voter's choices in an election or a referendum is anonymous, forestalling attempts to influence the voter by intimidation, blackmailing, and potential vote buying. The system is one means of achieving the goal of political privacy.
Democracy *IS* mob rule... right?
Help! help!, the termites are eating my DRAM!!!
Yeah, a leftist who provided Krupp, BASF and Benz with slave labour.
He's talking to the wrong people. Technology companies aren't equipped to verify the identities of billions of people all over the world. If governments are willing to issue digitally-verifiable IDs that they'll back with their own laws, then the problem space would be reduced.
If Digital IDs were available, tech companies wouldn't have to require them. Just make them optional, and give people the ability to filter out messages from anyone who isn't IDd. I doubt it would take long for users to choose to filter out anonymous users.
If you think that goes against the "ideals" of the internet, remember that people have been using the internet to filter their view of the world for as long as it has existed.
The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
Why can't an Internet ID be anonymous?
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
Except removing anonymity is not really necessary with semi-sensible moderation, white/black lists, and content visibility policies. /. is a really good example of this. Not perfect, but browse at +2 and it's a fairly decent place. Want to dive into the madness of the AC? Change your post level settings or just click "x hidden comments".
I've got in my back pocket a couple of similar but I think better moderation schemes which include shadowbans, reputation, and friends-of-friends and foes-of-friends tweaks. Not likely that I'll ever be in a place to implement them, but if I am, I'll try them out.
Straight up/down votes with no metamoderation are the scourge of the internet. Combined with no sockpuppet policies, you end up with absolutely abusive forums. (Cough reddit, cough.) Websites on the internet are only the wild west if the owners of forums want it to be. Anyone who wants some civility can make that happen, and it doesn't require giving up anonymity.
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
This authoritarian idiot's solution to tyranny of the majority is to effectively pre-dox everyone? What could possibly go wrong with that idea?
The court's gag order didn't last long. It had to be abandoned after the story broke internationally. Since it had been suppressed in the compliant press, the government is hopping mad that the Internet saw their gag order as damage, and routed around it.
I'm getting so fucking tired of immature ignorant whinning of dim prepotent politicians trying to vilify and polarize technologies they don't understand and trying to paint a black and white picture that only exists in their fantasy land... or more likely, don't exist at all because they never tried to understand the stuff they are talking about.
That is the true problem we have today. This sorta shit. If we had less shitheads berating against anonymity, privacy and encryption - and by now we had a very long time to understand it's not as one sided and clear as some moronic politicians will try to put it -, we'd be dealing with criminals who uses those to their advantage better today. Goddamn it feels like a virus spreading in governments and courts all around the world...
Identification is literally the opposite of anonymity.
When you can figure out how to get up to also be down let us know, until then... don't ask paradoxical questions. If you didn't realize your mistake the moment you typed it out, then you have other problems to focus on rather than this discussion.
"saying they would be ordered to clamp down on vile attacks against women on their platforms"
The thing with anonymity is that your gender and race do not need to be disclosed, you can claim anything or be anyone. Everyone is equal online and that's the whole point.
As for the word "attack", you can't attack anyone online, you can only throw insults at them, it's only words from random people who you don't know and who don't matter to you. Ignore them, respond in kind or better yet just laugh and ridicule their feeble attempts to insult you.
People need to take the internet for what it is and embrace the anonymity. You can be who you want to be online, if you feel that being a woman online makes you weak and opens you up to "attacks" then pretend to be a man and see what happens. If someone anonymous doesn't like you then so what? You can be just as anonymous as them, they can't do anything to you.
People troll because they get a response, by running away crying about being "attacked" you are giving them a response and making them feel powerful because they had the ability to affect you. If you laugh at them and show them that not only are you suffering no negative effects from their trolling, but you are actually finding their pathetic attempts to insult you amusing then they will soon give up anyway.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Obviously you're going to have to ensure any connection to the barbarians on the outside be sanitized by government protectors.
"I like systems, their application excepted", George Sand (French)
Yo are so utterly wrong on that. Look into the Night of the Long Knives and a certain head of the Nazi Party that was actually the leftist that was murdered. Hitler was far right and when Hitler took power, the Nazi party became socialist in name only
Go and tell some neo-Nazis they're a bunch of lefties. Please. It'll be hilarious.
OOOh vile attacks on women, good excuse to get rid of secure encryption.
Go well
Hope the VPN holds against the GCHQ AC? vs Edgehill? BULLRUN?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
So Francisco Franco was a leftist?
What'd be good for you would be a little knowledge of actual history.
Your claims regarding American politics are also highly suspect. The truth of the matter is that US Democrats would be considered "moderate right" in just any other Western country, and Republicans would be considered "far right". NO viable player on the US espouses anything like an actual leftist agenda, because, to begin with, not one of them presents any serious challenge to the 1% or the corporations. When there's a party, represented by candidates on national ballots, that has the balls to espouse things like nationalisation of industry, breakup and redistribution of large estates, universal free education at all levels, and universal free health care, then you'll know that the US has finally grown a left wing.
Placing or keeping the means of production in a few favoured private hands is a hallmark of right-wing régimes.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Also if everyone had to walk round carrying a placard with their real name and address, this would cut down on real life antisocial behaviour. I imagine he has this lined up for phase two
National socialism (nationalsozialismus) != socialism.
You cannot simply split up the word into "national" and "socialism" and then consider each word separately, because it's supposed to be one word in its native language, where the definition comes from. English doesn't do conjugated verbs, which leads to this silly (or intentional, by idiots) misunderstanding.
It should be "nationalsocialism", which is distinct from both "nationalism" and "socialism".
But I bet you already knew that, and you're just being a dumbass.
Eat the rich.
Being able to obtain anonymity on the Internet is important, for the same reason that reporters should never reveal their sources. Sometimes information MUST be made known to the public, and the identity of the provider of that information MUST remain unknown for that person or group's safety. A bit of hateful trolling is a small price to pay for this.
There are other methods for rooting out trolls, and more importantly methods people can learn to recognize, and discount the opinion of, online trolls.
This unnamed "security minister of the United Kingdom" needs to fuck off.
(Intentionally NOT anonymized.)
Tommy Robinson breached a reporting ban (his second offense of this type). This type of ban is typically put in place in order to prevent mob justice and harassment of suspects who are still not convicted, in cases of a sensitive nature.
Would you want your name and face live streamed to Facebook, simply for being the suspect in a trial, where you may or may not be guilty?
Tommy Robinson tried to short-circuit the legal system, including the protections put in place for suspects who are yet to be convicted. In other words he tried to impose his own personal judgment on a case in which he has absolutely no right to interfere. Not to mention that this is the second time he's done so, hence the harsher punishment this time. Tommy Robinson is a radicalized extremist who apparently thinks he is above the law. He is not.
Eat the rich.
The majority of the UK Conservative Party despairs of Theresa May and her statist politics, so your claim wrt UK politics is disingenuous at best.
His crime was attempting to short-circuit the legal protections of the suspect in an ongoing court case. That is contempt of court, and realistically actually contempt for the entire legal system. Something which the legal system does not look lightly upon.
You may disagree with their decisions, but that is not the right way to change things.
Eat the rich.
This may seem obvious, but all the same, I fell it needs to be said again: Anonymity is a double-edged sword in so far it protects the innocent from persecution, ridicule and harassment on the other hand it also allow the guilty to avoid identification, retaliation and prosecution.
Personally, I am willing to allow a certain amount of "crime" (especially if the crime is of wielding words) for the benefit of having at least a modicum of anonymity in society, offline as well as online.
I don't need a signature to draw attention to myself.
As someone who lives in the UK, I take a slightly different view from the somewhat rabid and over-hyped fear-mongers on this site.
Let's have some context:
The UK government is in a mess. The whole Brexit fiasco was poorly thought out and people were asked to vote on little/no information at best and outright lies at worst. This has resulted in many many views on what the result meant and massive in-fighting in the government which is spending so much time on the issue nothing else substantive seems to be happening. Couple this with an election leaving a minority party in power, with little opportunity to make any changes and you have a confused muddle.
So what to do? take decisive action? no too hard!! -- let's have a distraction: royal weddings are good for a couple of months run-up but even they pass. An attack on internet companies is always a short term winner - it panders to the worst elements of the press (who see their business model of peddling hate and discord being threatened) and hits the hot buttons of "terror" and "what of the children/women?".
The level of debate here shows the distraction technique works.
As for implementation -- just look at history: England have more chance of winning the world cup than a UK Government IT system working properly. A few consultancies and IT companies may make some money (but at least nowadays the government does try to claw back overspend on its fiascos)
I seriously doubt that anything will really change and in six months to a year's time things will be just the same.
Sort of... the Nazi Party's official abbreviation was "NsDAP" ("National socialist German Workers Party"). The "s" was lowercase, but they apparently still thought it was necessary to disambiguate their party's name. If "Nationalsocialist" were truly one monolithic, unique, and inseparable word, "NDAP" would have been sufficient. It wasn't.
A country can be totally socialist with respect to its own citizens, yet be completely awful to everyone else within its borders. Just look at Saudi Arabia. It's practically the DEFINITION of "socialist" IF you're a Saudi citizen... you're eligible for free money from birth until death, and get the world & your career handed to you on a gold platter... quite possibly, while working for a state-owned company. If you're a foreigner, though, you'll always be at best second-class & looked down upon.
GP is probably c6gunner, although normally he manages to work guns into it somehow.
The practice of defining anything he doesn't like - from sports umpires to the weather - as leftist is pretty much his trademark.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Except for the part where that's what he was before trolls existed, sure.
Socialism was quite popular at the time. The word was added by the marketing department. These days, they'd be the blockchain party.
In other news, Greenland is actually mostly white.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
The idea of the greater internet dickwad theory is an attractive one. Normal person + anonymity = dickwad. So if this is true, then it stands to reason removing anonymity is the solution.
But heres the thing ,we've tried that in facebooks real name property, and it never worked. In fact it made things worse. If people want to bully someone, that person is right there easy to find on facebook. If they want to hide, they can't unless they want to pull out a significant chunk of their social life. This , by the way includes people hiding from drug gangs, battered wives, whatever todays target of 4chans regular idiot crusade is, journalists who work in risky fields, police, judges, etc.
The thing is, its not anonymity that makes the internet turn into dickheads, its the lack of consequences. If I get on facebook and start issuing death threats at journalists or game reviewers or whatever, theres very little chance anythings going to happen to me. Hell I'll end up with a bunch of socially stunted millenialls even defending my behavior. Theres no downside to it. After all *I* can forge a fake identity, as long as it sounds plausible, but that journalist is probably just using her own ID.
None of this happens in the real world with any great frequency, because if I knock on someones door and threaten to kill them, if they are larger then me, they'll knock my lights out, and if they are not, the cops will do it for them. Because thats how things work in the world of adults.
So thats the real problem. Its not anonymity that induces bad behavior, its the lack of consequences. Its peoples acceptance of shitty behavior from those in their friend circle, its the legal professions disinterest in people getting harassed.
This might seem anathema to a lot of folks, but it only takes the thought experiment of taking the way people behave online and putting it in the real world to see that its precisely the lack of consequences thats turned half the internet into giant raving dickwads.
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
"...the negative costs of their technology, such as end-to-end encryption"
Negative. Costs.
Well, that's a fairly subjective view of the situation, isn't it it, old chap? I think there are a great many people who would like to see your working on that one, before giving you a smash in the face with a frying pan for being an utter twatknacker.
It's not you: I'm just this horrifically socially awkward with everybody.
Hitler as literally in the national socialist party. The liberals don't want to admit it but he was just a leftist extremist.
Like the Democratic People's Republic of Korea which is none of those things? The name you put on something really has no bearing to what it is/does (see patriot act) but if you think hitler was extreme left you must be so far right that you're off the scale, on to a new scale and off that one again.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
You shouldn't spout hyperbole just because you can't accept the natural result of socialism in a resource-constrained economy.
English certainly does conjugate verbs. I think you meant that English doesn't form adjective+noun compounds in the same fashion that German does. (FWIW, Swedish does this, too.)
But your analysis is otherwise spot-on.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
will mean implementing strong censorship rules after Brexit.
Is to access government services - taxes, passports, benefits etc. There is no reason whatsoever for it to extend beyond that, and besides it would be trivially easy to sidestep, e.g. using a VPN to another country.
Identification is literally the opposite of anonymity.
When you can figure out how to get up to also be down let us know, until then... don't ask paradoxical questions. If you didn't realize your mistake the moment you typed it out, then you have other problems to focus on rather than this discussion.
I have an ID on this and many other sites but I'm still anonymous. Even if the gov put out a shit form and a need a UID to even log on to the internet (good luck getting that working) and I fill it with false details and get my ID off I go. Even if I get one someone else's ID i'm still anonymous. Go back to pointing out that when you declare something a UFO its been identified as unidentified and figure that one out.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
free speech reforms
Hahahaha, yeah we'll get right on that after we're finished locking up every random twitter user who's ever tweeted something disparaging about a muslim.
You don't need the qualifier.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
Lol what? It was a running joke in the late 70s
You have to seperate the issues: on economic issues you're right, the US has only very rightwing and right extremists. On most social issues the US Demorats are left also for European standards.
NO viable player on the US espouses anything like an actual leftist agenda,
Because no viable player in the world espouses anything like an actual leftist agenda?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Given the timing, this must be some sort of viral advertising by NordVPN - just can't go anywhere these days without seeing their ads :p
0x or or snor perron?!
Here that's how every trial of a celebrity is handled, with the judge only able to control reporting from inside the courtroom. Are you saying that if O J Simpson had been tried in the UK, nobody would know he had even been tried because of being acquitted?
Is the intent to protect the privacy of the defendant, or to prevent publicity about what the prosecutionis doing?
Had a look lately?
In the last 2 months the rate of moderation has CRASHED.
The rate of anonymous stealth-bombing (posting what look to be sensible comments, but WAY off topic and contentless) have gone through the roof.
Of course the 'quality' of articles has done the same, and it is sliding fast into the gutter.
Many theories as to why.. but IMHO the most likely is a semi organised attack on the types who historically used it, in an attempt to marginalize them.
Of course most of them left some time ago, so.....
does that not prove the government is usually not part of the solution to problems?
Since you ask: No, it most certainly does not.
It does, however, demonstrate that you're indulging yourself in a juvenile "It's not perfect therefore it's wrong" temper-fit, though.
1. Creating a fair number of on-line fake ID's. Because when legislation like this becomes popular, your real name and address absolutely will wind up making you available in the real world to hate groups, stalkers, and other varieties of creep.
Two things are certain: there will be wholesale leaks of personal information, and this kind of legislation will contain provisions to protect governments and corporations from the consequences those inevitable leaks.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Username checks out.
To be fair, the NsDAP did have a fairly large socialist contingent early on, favoring such traditionally-leftist ideals such as nationalization of the means of production and such. Early on the movement was characterized almost entirely along populist, nationalist/ethnic goals and wasn't as unified in terms of economic policy.
Most of the socialist contingent was purged in the Night of Long Knives, though. After that, the party was firmly in favor of capitalist corporate entities supported by a fascist state.
I'd go so far as to say the the US is so far right that they are now in the Tinpot Dictatorship spectrum
In what dictatorship can the citizens and media be hypercritical of the dictator?
Just another day in Paradise
It would have been bad for all involved if that trial had collapsed because of Robinson's actions.
These days he's just trying to martyr himself because the far right/UKIP support is drying up after the Brexit vote. His supporters are the types who used to be football hooligans and have now moved on to a slightly more respectable brand of tribalism.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
National socialism (nationalsozialismus) != socialism.
You cannot simply split up the word into "national" and "socialism" and then consider each word separately, because it's supposed to be one word in its native language, where the definition comes from. English doesn't do conjugated verbs, which leads to this silly (or intentional, by idiots) misunderstanding.
It should be "nationalsocialism", which is distinct from both "nationalism" and "socialism".
But I bet you already knew that, and you're just being a dumbass.
Yup, much like the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (a.k.a. N-Korea) is neither Democratic nor is it a Republic.
Erich Roehm, who was killed in the Night of the long Knives, was a socialist with leftie tendencies, being a mamber of the Workers Party before he joined the NSDAP. He wanted the National Socialist party to actually live the socialist part of the name. Roehm had control over the militia at the time, the SA. Hitler was worried he would use his SA thugs to toss him out and live his dreams, and evidence would suggest that the idea did cross Roehm's mind.
Hitler decided to move first so out Roehm went. Since Hitler was going for the kill anyways, so did quite a few others. But the name stayed.
The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
This is where "grooming" happens in the UK:
The problem isn't a lack of mandatory government IDs online, the problem is an abject failure of Britain's government and governing elites to protect children from rape.
Furthermore, if mandatory IDs online had been used, these horrific abuses would never have come to light because even more people would have been carted off to jail for "causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety."
The economy is doing well, we have more jobs than ever... so many that deporting Mexican's is probably going to become a non-issue
If the economy is strong and unemployment low the only way to supplement your labour market is with immigrants. He's going to have to flip flop on the Mexican thing sooner or later or it will become an issue.
The American "spectrum" consists of two parties: Democrats and Republicans. The Democrats used to be "European soft-right" because they used to support free markets. That went out the window some time in the 2000's. The Democrats are now fully for government control of both the economy and personal lives, placing them pretty far left by European standards. As for Republicans, they are roughly a non-religious version of European Christian democrats.
Statism has been an integral part of both the European left and the European right. There are no significant non-statist parties in most of Europe.
In the beginning, befoew Adolf took over the joint there was a serious Socialist component in the party. Hitler did not found of name the party.
The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
The US ranks in 18th place on the index of economic freedom, behind many European nations, including the UK. The US spends more per capita on social welfare and spends more per capita on single payer, government healthcare, retirement, and education that many European nations. In what sense is it "very rightwing and right extremist"?
That's what leftists do. In the US, it was the Democrats who provided Southern land owners with slave labor, they provide California agribusinesses with what amounts to little more than slave labor, and behind the Iron Curtain, communists enslaved entire regions to a few communist functionaries.
And how is that different from any other "socialist" party?
Socialists like to describe any economic system that differs from theirs as "capitalist". But the words they choose do not define reality. In reality, the fascist economic system is similar to socialism; it most certainly was not what conservatives advocate when they advocate "capitalism", namely free markets.
You seem to somehow be under the impression that leftist don't support slave labor. I suggest you take a good look at both the old Soviet Union and China, particularly. That leftist are for 'the people' is a myth. One they've been very good at perpetuating, but then leftist are masters of propaganda, and always have been.
So when people want to be *anonymous*, they just require companies and governments to investigate in a little extra metadata tracking, and they can get the job done. If someone cares, they will track you. All that current anonymity does is give a false sense of security to those emit bile on the internet. It is consequence-free because tracking is hard for normal people. Some of that bile is from state actors. surprise. Free speech is about not being punished for frankly stating a view. It is not about *anonymity.*
Believing that you are untraceable because you called yourself a silly name is silly. If anyone cares, they will track you down. Believing that internet anonymity is real is dangerous because if you start saying things that are of interest to authorities, they will find you. Its a false sense of security, and one that gives the governments and large corporations that make the investment power over all of us by giving them exclusivity over the ability to track.
Real identities are better for all of us, and more transparency will get us more than security by obscurity. Make it easier for everyone to track everyone so that that power is democratic. Yeah spousal abuse... ok, but isnt it a heck of a lot easier to enforce a court order if everyone is wearing a tracking device, that anyone can see and report?
I actually hate that future is ubiquitous tracking, but just as arguing that water isnt wet does not make sense, the technology makes it very easy to track people, and people will be tracked, the only thing we can realisticially do is track the people doing the tracking. It sucks, but calling yourself doofus doesnt do a thing.
privacy is a dead illusion. anyone in authority who cares can burst that bubble.
Not sure what your point is. But the royal families were stripped of power in favour of democratically elected governments a long time ago. Personally, I'd love to see them stripped of their official titles too, as I'm generally opposed to the idea of hereditary titles, but I doubt that'll happen in my time.
The point isn't to make it impossible to remove privacy, just to make it more difficult. People have been physically threatened and "Swatted" for things they post online (criticism of authoritarian governments, anti-war, Gamergate). A non-anonymous Internet would silence a lot of constructive speech, since people would fear for their safety.
Given a choice I would choose "the wild west", I like the hats
The Nazis were elected into power as socialists, and forwarded a socialist agenda until the Night of the Long Knives. This is the very problem with the modern left: concentration of power in the government, heedless of the dangers when the wrong person takes that power. Progressives can't seem to see this danger even when protesting in the streets about "Donald Trump the Fascist".
"Not real Communism" killed over 160 million people. Can we please stop trying for more "Not real Socialism".
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
When it comes to the UK and "grooming", I don't think it's the West (wild or otherwise) that's the main problem ...
But don't worry; they are very efficient at locking you up for saying not nice things like that. 'cause that's the important thing.
So... now I have to worry about the kid down the street spray painting my real life car, to pay me back for blowing up his online spaceship. Pass.
I have been pushing multiple American candidates to do several things:
/., they could then enable us to say that we will view ONLY vetted certs (which means person is new OR has not been kicked off), OR anonymous at say level 3. That way, moderators can decide which of the unvetted ppl have comments worth while looking at.
1) say that intel world is free to get to data from non-encyrpted data streams/storage. The reason is that it is not much different than sending a postcard to glass mailbox that is without a front. IOW, you seed without any effort.
2) OTOH, we need to require a warrant on anything that is encrypted.
This will have the effect of causing all the apps and OSs to encrypt everything.
Then we need VETTED certs for everybody, at least in the west. This does not mean that all things must use these certs. However, if send in a vetted cert to
The best way to vet this is not at the bank, but at post offices, DMVs, or those that issue gov IDs. Have them either generate a cert pair and give you the private via bluetooth OR they person send the public key to the vetter. Regardless, the public key is then installed on a central DB and marked vetted.
Nice advantage is that if a site boots a vetted person, they can keep them off as being vetted. In addition, others of us do not have to deal with the trolls who never have anything intelligent to say.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Just because you have a vetted certificate does NOT mean that a site has to require a cert. For example, the ideal thing for /. is to allow us to say that I will see ALL vetted postings as well as a level 3 on non-vetted postings. Moderaters than have to see all, though they might want to set a level of 0. That means that if you posted something interesting and are moderated up to 3, then you would be seen.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
The UK's security minister is not content with having video cameras on every vertical support in the country, and feels the UK can only be saved from a "wild west" mob rule if every comment we make online is securely identified by a digital ID. The will allow the government to monitor all antisocial remarks and, of course, keep an eternal record of every one of them on the Internet. Obviously, the Land of Hope and Glory has descended into the pits of authoritarian government and totalitarian monitoring of all of its subjects. It was a good place once, but there's no England anymore.
The US spends more per capita on social welfare and spends more per capita on single payer, government healthcare, retirement, and education that many European nations. In what sense is it "very rightwing and right extremist"?
The US has to spend so much on those services, at least in part because of the extreme version of capitalism practised in the US. Take healthcare - in UK, the NHS can keep lid on the cost of medicines etc, because they are part of government and have the power to do so; apparently this is not the case in the US. To quote https://www.investopedia.com/a...:
"Most other developed countries control costs, in part, by having the government play a stronger role in negotiating prices for healthcare."
It is easy to understand, I think: private companies will ALWAYS seek to maximise their profits, and since there is no real competition, they feel free to drive prices up.
Many internet forums *shouldn't* have anonymity and that's the point. There is room for both. Some places, like for organizing political protests, anonymity is paramount. On other forums where you want to maintain order and civility, anonymity has negative value. I should be able to pay cash and buy things anonymously. But perhaps not firearms?
No, compared to core America, she is considered just soft right. For you, she might be left wing, but not for America as a whole.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
To the extent of his support for working people, he won't have to do that until wages rise more significantly. Meanwhile, his cohorts in the 1percent will continue to do everything they can to keep "regular" inflation too low for such rises to be forced. I say "regular" inflation to represent more classic and visible raising of prices, as opposed to inflation by devaluation of good and services (smaller roll of toilet paper for same price) or using new technologies to more effectively "milk" consumers.
Strange things are afoot at the Circle-K.
not really. Just because we elected a nazi does not mean that America's population is that far right.
Chances are good that Russia did not just manipulate ppl, but also our e-votes as well. In addition, having to choose between 2 horrible choices was just that; HORRIBLE. We continue to have faux news destroying good ppl on the left and the right is really far right, which says why they continue to run nightmares.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Provided this is coupled with significant privacy and free speech reforms.
The problem is, even if those things do happen, they can un-happen. Meanwhile, the government will still be in charge of ID.
If we want to see it not happen, we have to provide an alternative, perhaps tying pgp keyservers to web services. Something where we can be reasonably sure that the person we're talking to today is the person we were talking to yesterday... on the web. I realize that pgp offers this already; why isn't anyone using pgp key verification on websites?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
While you are at it, reveal the names of the moderators.
My guess is the quality of discussions will skyrocket.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
And forcing prices lower lowers demand for new drugs as a financial incentive.
The static analysis sounds fine -- give out for cheaper what already exists.
But the lion's share of saved lives happens from rolling ongoing development that leaves the static in the dust.
You...can't give it out for free until somebody else invents it first.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Order and civility are overrated and are used as excuses by authoritarian assholes to push their agendas.
Anyone who uses the words right and left and refuses to discuss the details is a moron or one of the disingenuous ring leaders who tells said people how to think.
Tell me again who exactly gets to see these certificates? I'm sure that advertisers are making a mess of their underwear over the thought of this.
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
the gov cannot ever have ALL the power. a little privacy is all that remains. voting is fake because the media is controlled. you think Jesus will save us if they ever fuck up again?
Are you saying that if O J Simpson had been tried in the UK, nobody would know he had even been tried because of being acquitted?
No. Had OJ been tried in the UK the media would have been able to report that a trial was taking place, and the outcome of that trial.
If, to assure a fair trial, reporting was restricted during the trial, the media would have been able to report on the contents of the trial and its outcome following its completion.
Nobody is preventing trials from being reported. There is a just temporal adjustment to maximise the chances of a fair trial.
It's called justice. The US might like to learn from it.
Socialism is bad. ANY monopoly is bad. Big anything is a problem. Large systems don't scale in general. It doesn't matter if the Robber Baron in question is a private citizen or part of government.
Socialism doesn't really work past the scale of a commune. If you really want to be a do-gooder then do so locally and step up yourself.
The American taxpayer is far too much of a deadbeat to trust with my cancer treatment.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
> the NHS can keep lid on the cost of medicines
You underpay doctors and nurses.
You don't have enough hospitals or A&E wards.
You ration cancer meds.
You ration and waitlist people for surgery including heart surgery.
You still need charities to pick up the slack (Teenage Cancer Trust).
You don't have enough diagnostic equipment and people flee to the private market (although you at least have one versus Canada).
The way you underpay your nurses is a national disgrace.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
One of Hitler's key issues was universal health care.
The real problem is that most statists don't realize that it's pretty much all the same. Only a few relevant details differ. Motivations might be radically different but that's fairly irrelevant.
You are trying to distract people on "what they think" versus "what they do".
In this regard, fascists and communists are the same animal. You will end up with similar results. The excuses will just be different.
So socialists trying to use "Nazi" as an insult really miss the point entirely.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Wake me up when the US "right wing" is for any of these things.
emt 377 emt 4
Even better WindBourne. Once you are flagged compulsive liar even your anon posts will be flagged, perfect.
Shadowbans are trash and part of the problem.
Cue no-true-leftist fallacy in 3... 2... 1...
Meanwhile, it’s the British justice system that is turning into that legendary boot stamping on a human face forever.
I think this theory is spot on.
Just another day in Paradise
Labour couldn't get ID cards through, with a massive majority. The current government might succeed with no majority purely because Labour will want them.
It wont end well. The Brexit vote showed the British people have limits on the shit they'll take, and the Government will do well to remember this.
What's concerning me is that every single female minister we have seems to have a vicious authoritarian bent. May was held in check by her party, Rudd appeared to be appointed to continue the terrible work and this security minister appears to want to ignore the common sense her own security services will tell her.
Where the fuck are the intelligent sensible female MPs and why aren't they being given cabinet posts?
Correct observation, nothing troll about it.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Namely, we wish to encode *argument from authority* into the Internet. If I were to post this as AC, you would be forced to evaluate my statement based purely on its content since AC could be anybody. OK, perhaps you might judge it based on your perception of the general attitudes of ACs, but that's about it. Next, by posting it under my pseudonym as I am now, you'll judge it a bit more based on possible prior experience with my pseudonym which doesn't really tell you very much about me unless you're a creepy stalker. Finally, I could be forced to post under my Real Name (TM), in which case you could pull in more judgey crap like bias against the ethnicity of my surname, my skin color, etc.
It is the final form of judgement that the UK wishes to encode onto the Internet--judgement based more on reputation than the content of what's being said.
The classic solution to undesirable content from anonymous sources is usually to ignore it if nobody is willing to stand by it. Usually anonymous content is garbage, but on rare and important occasions it shines. Then you must refute it based purely on logic. Historically this isn't something the Brits have handled well, so I don't suppose we American patriots should be terribly surprised.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Thy are doing quite well, simply by staying out of politics.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Don't forget Ford and General Motors who also did quite over the back of the German population.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
True, this (adjective+noun compounds) is in all Germanic languages with the exception of English.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
The 's' was lower case because in German adjectives are not written with a capital.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
For a first amendment you need a constitutions, something that is infamously lacking in the UK.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
who gets to see them? Whoever you give access to. And just because you give access to the public certificate does not mean that you have to show your name, etc.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Rather than the bland, approved, sanitized pap that the world's governments would inevitably use to control us.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
"I have an ID on this and many other sites but I'm still anonymous. Even if the gov put out a shit form and a need a UID to even log on to the internet (good luck getting that working) and I fill it with false details and get my ID off I go. Even if I get one someone else's ID i'm still anonymous. Go back to pointing out that when you declare something a UFO its been identified as unidentified and figure that one out."
Do you do the same with credit card purchases? Banking transactions? I'm all for anonymity, but if they made it illegal to use other's ID on the internet or bypass your govt issued ID, then most people will do what's required. As anonymous as you think you are on this site, odds are they keep IP records which can likely be traced back to you. Now, if you use VPNs to stay anonymous, it could be effective. That said, if they want to track you, they can just require VPN services to keep logs as well. If they don't comply, they can be liable. If they are outside your country, they can be blocked. That's what the US did with many gambling sites. Plus, your ISP could even be required to not allow VPN type services that go around such tracking. I'm not saying its right, but getting around it isn't as easy as you think. China has 1.1B people and they seem to have it locked down pretty tight.
Ninjas don't carry tic tacs
Small notes:
The purpose of the ban is to avoid influencing juries. This is partially because the British system handles jury selection differently than the US system. Additionally, they do not do sequestration either at all, or in the same fashion - I'm not quite as clear on that facet. As such, there is some potential that reporting may influence the jury. I'm not really sure how that impacts the 'celebrity' cases, but that is the purpose of the news blackouts.
Second, Tommy supposedly believed he was there for the sentencing portion of a trial - i.e. after the deliberation was complete, so there was not risk of biasing the jury. Except, due to the number of defendants in the child rape gang, the case was being in 3 tranches. Tommy was there for the sentencing of the second tranche.
So while his reporting could have no impact on the outcome of the trial he was reporting on, it may have had some impact on the next set of defendants getting an un-biased jury. Or at least that is what the expectation is that the defense would argue. Of course, an argument could also be made that what he was reporting on had already been published in at least one newspaper, so it's a bit of a question as to what he was a doing different - except for perhaps expanding the number of people that would see the defendants.
Third, while he was convicted for 'Contempt of Court' for doing something similar ~12 months ago, there are a couple of differences worth noting. From the case last year - A) He was filming on court property, which is illegal. B) The judge in that case gave him some leniency in his use of language and the approach he took with the accused due to not being a trained journalist. Why is this relevant? Because in this instance, while he was reporting, he was following the instruction he had been giving from that previous court case to avoid running afoul of the court again.
Forth is the general arrest shenanigans. He was arrested for 'Suspected Breach of the Peace', his lawyer was told he was going to be released and not to travel, he was hustled (in less than 5 hours) before the judge (who may have watched him getting arrested), where the charges shifted to Contempt of Court, and he was defended by a court appointed lawyer. It's believed that his 'Guilty' plea was done at the advise of that court lawyer, despite it not being in his defendants best interest. Following all of that, the judge put in a reporting ban on Tommy's case. There is a lot to be scared of in that scenario - in next to no time, a thorn in the state's side got vanished, and no one was allowed to talk about it.
I'm not really a fan of Tommy - but I do tend to support those who any government dislike. I believe Tommy, like Brexit, is one of many 'blow back' responses to failures of the UK government; and the British government specifically. I believe Tommy is latching on to the rape gang issue to promote his platform. But if the government had done it's job, he wouldn't have anything to associate himself with.
letting prices rise doesn't really encourage development of new drugs either, as long as the old ones can still be milked. Lifetime treatment is more profitable than cures, too.
any one where the dictator realizes that letting the masses blow off steam doesn't actually hurt his power that much.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You don't think the USSR was built with slave labor?
Hitler and Stalin wanted to expand the size of government.
Also 8, 20 million civilian deaths between them.
And they were different how?
The names of the accused and the crimes, and even their photographs were already available to the public.
And in his own words:
This is the problem, you see that - it's not my concern, it's not his concern.. hundreds of young girls have been gang raped in our country in every town and city across this country, and some of the alleged perpetrators are in court today, and people need to know what's going on.
At no point in that livestream does Robinson assert that the persons involved are guilty and that the trial is a waste of time. He states the need to be careful what he says, and that there is a press restriction on reporting the details of the case. The worst that I could find was that when asking those entering the courthouse, of which he did not identify, was "how do you feel about the verdict" he characterizes some of the profanity-laced responses he receives.
I'm willing to give Robinson the benefit of the doubt, because it is all too evident what happens to those who act as whistleblowers or are otherwise problematic for a corrupt political establishment. The myriad of laws that exist are conveniently enforced with extreme prejudice for personas non grata, in other words, "show me the man and I'll show you the crime."
Just as taxing the hell out of people and throwing them in prison for 'hate speech' when they criticize it is a hallmark of left-wing dictatorships.
That's what legal immigrants are for.
And yet, a UK oncological nurse resorted to a gofundme to get cancer drugs that the NHS deemed "not cost effective." Neither place nor system is perfect.
What both parties in the US espouse is a statist agenda, which is extremely similar to what is espoused in ALL European countries, from what I can see from North America.
Every economy is resource constrained.
Trump's approval rating has never been good, not even at the moment he was elected-- it seems that a substantial chunk of Trump voters didn't actually think he could win (we were all told he couldn't) and thought he would be a safe protest vote.
On the other hand, there's a good third of the US population that would happily vote a neo-Nazi into office because it would piss off them liberals.
any one where the dictator realizes that letting the masses blow off steam doesn't actually hurt his power that much.
So, no such real world dictatorship.
Just another day in Paradise
Threatening people is illegal, Swatting is illegal, and are usually done anonymously. It's way higher cost to do that if you must take responsibility for it. It should be far safer to speak up if others are held responsible for their speech.
What if the people doing the threatening are cops or otherwise in authority? i.e. it's sometimes convenient to drop a video of cops abusing their power anonymously in order not to face reprisals from the scum.
That's the joke.
but yeah... whistleblowers are good case for real anonymity, but that is a far narrower case, and it should be a special one, not the default that allows the casual cost-free reprisals we see today.
Cost-free reprisals help equalize things between the powerful and powerless. That cop who just beat someone up? His wife's restaurant magically gets reviews that it's a roach-infested pesthole, and they end up defaulting on a quarter-million loan and being turfed out of their home. Karma can be a real bitch.
Cops aren't anonymous. Film the cop beating someone up, and he gets brought up on charges, and the law happens.
Except (in many countries) he gets a slap on the wrist. Few days' suspension, maybe a small fine. So the alternative is to exact economic punishment...
The saddest part is that about 44% of people didn't even care enough that a nazi might win to even bother voting.
Only 1/4 of eligible voters actually wanted Trump, but now he's President.
If you had compulsory voting and the option for 'neither they both suck'. 'Neither they both suck' would have won.
He's very specifically trying to rile people up, get some vigilante "justice" going. It's painfully transparent.
Eat the rich.
"'Socialist' I define from the word 'social; meaning in the main âsocial equityâ(TM). A Socialist is one who serves the common good without giving up his individuality or personality or the product of his personal efficiency. Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false." - Adolf Hitler, 1938
in most countries criminals lie and accuse cops of all manner of misdeeds. Yeah, crooked happens, but anarchy and mob rule isn't the antidote, it's worse than the disease.
(1) "Criminals" are often "perpetrators" of victimless crimes. Cops are the scumbuckets who harass people for having a good time.
(2) More anarchy is very much the answer -- the developed world, especially the English-speaking world, is too fucking orderly and boring.
Begone then, leave the 'fucking orderly and boring' world then, move to Ethiopia or Afghanistan... lots of anarchy and excitement there.
Go move to China, you authoritarian bootlicker.
Which party in Germany pursued the nationalization of free health care?
The Nationalist Socialist Party, also known as the Nazis.
Which party in the US pursued the nationalization of health insurance (ACA) with a preference (but lack of mandate for) for single payer?
The DNC. The Democratic party.
And how are they different?
So the socialists today are not like THAT evil thug.
They're really more like the OTHER evil thug.
The nazis actually wanted to end nationalized health care, which had actually been instituted in the 1870s, long before the nazi party. Hitler wanted to do this relatively early, but was met with resistance, so they didn't try to abolish it again until the late 1930s. And obviously, any healthcare during the reich was only available to "pure aryans".
So you've got it completely backwards.
So how are the NsDAP and the DNC different? How about in every single goddamn way, you ignorant neo-con shill?
Eat the rich.
Have a short look here as well:
http://www.peoplesworld.org/ar...
Eat the rich.
I hear you but it isn't In the freer countries, things are way better - even in resource constrained places like (say) Britain or Israel.
The UK Government tried to prevent anonymous pamphleteers before and during the Colonies in North America revolted under UK rule. This is old news. This is an old, as well as a bad idea. The UK Governments in all its successive iterations will Always want to imprison their own people -- as they tried in the Colonies, Scotland, Northern Ireland, etc.
Read the subject line, you fat cunt.
I doubt they got played much over there, since they straddle about three genres which would confuse the fuck out of the tiny-minded shitcocks who assemble the playlists.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
And you describe anything you don't like as socialist.
What's your opinion on broccoli?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I award you zero points, etc.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I don't expect anything from a fool anyway.
There are many forms of authoritarianism, and I despise all of them. Not all of them are socialist. But among authoritarian ideologies, both national and international socialism are the worst.
Socialism doesn't really work past the scale of a commune.
I don't think you understand what those words mean.
he US spends more per capita on social welfare and spends more per capita on single payer, government healthcare, retirement, and education that many European nations. In what sense is it "very rightwing and right extremist"?
To make a stupid analogy, if a rich king gave his entire fortune to his favourite cousin who was a doctor and claimed it as healthcare expenditure, would that make his Kingdom socialist?
Yeah see there's a bit more to it...
And yet, a UK oncological nurse resorted to a gofundme to get cancer drugs that the NHS deemed "not cost effective." Neither place nor system is perfect.
You are right, but one system produces better outcomes on average to more people. Which is the point. Aren't we all interested in creating better outcomes for as many people as possible?
Well, if you understood how Medicare works then you'd see how stupid that analogy actually is.
Try answering the question again: In what sense is the US "very rightwing and right extremist"?
Well, if you understood how Medicare works then you'd see how stupid that analogy actually is.
Maybe you could tell me where I went wrong? The King is the govt, the cousin is big medicine/pharma/insurance getting fat on the public purse while the people are the peasants not getting a seat at the table.
Try answering the question again: In what sense is the US "very rightwing and right extremist"?
Is this a joke? Start here and see how many matches you get
So just like socialism then. Or how did you think socialism operates?
No. I actually emigrated from Europe, so I can tell you from first hand experience that you don't know what you're talking about.
So just like socialism then.
Depends on what your definition of socialism is. In many other countries with 'socialist' policies, they spend less on health and education and get better results.
But what are facts...
No. I actually emigrated from Europe, so I can tell you from first hand experience that you don't know what you're talking about.
Cool Story. Let me know when you finish high school....
You said, in effect, "this can't be socialism because it has corrupt and inefficient outcomes". I merely pointed out that your reasoning is wrong because socialism frequently has corrupt and inefficient outcomes.
Which would suggest those policies are actually less socialist, since the more socialist a policy is, the more corrupt and the worse the results tend to be.
You said, in effect, "this can't be socialism because it has corrupt and inefficient outcomes".
No I didn't. If you're unsure try asking rather than tell me what you think I'm thinking. It's very right wing and authoritarian to tell others what they are thinking. I get the message
Which would suggest those policies are actually less socialist, since the more socialist a policy is, the more corrupt and the worse the results tend to be.
Again, you're just talking stuff. Come back when you figure out how base your claims on some actual data.
Corruption affects both ends of the political spectrum, your statements make it clear you are unable to have an objective view of such things.
We agree there. And we also agree that Medicare/Medicaid is a corrupt policy ("big medicine/pharma/insurance getting fat on the public purse", your words). Now, in support of the statement that the US is "very rightwing and right extremist", you described the corrupt nature of Medicare/Medicaid. Since corruption is, as you point out, a feature of both ends of the political spectrum, it logically doesn't tell us whether Medicare/Medicaid is left wing or right wing by your own criteria.
So, you still have provided no convincing argument for the assertion that the US is "very rightwing and right extremist".
I didn't tell you what you are thinking, I restated what you said: "You said, in effect, 'this can't be socialism because it has corrupt and inefficient outcomes'."
Saying you said X, in fact, implies that I'm guessing that what you said differs from what you are thinking. I have no idea what you are thinking since you seem unable to articulate it clearly and since what you say contradicts the conclusions you want to reach.
My guess is that you aren't thinking at all and just repeat phrases you have picked up, like "very rightwing and right extremist". In fact, accusing people of being "very right wing and authoritarian" seems to be your go-to strategy whenever you are unable to make a logical argument.
Of course we are. Unfortunately it's outliers - expensive early adopters - that make things better, and cheaper, for the masses once things are perfected. There is no good solution. I do have another prophecy though: Once artificial intelligence takes over in medicine, medical research will grind to a halt.
We agree there. And we also agree that Medicare/Medicaid is a corrupt policy ("big medicine/pharma/insurance getting fat on the public purse", your words). Now, in support of the statement that the US is "very rightwing and right extremist", you described the corrupt nature of Medicare/Medicaid. Since corruption is, as you point out, a feature of both ends of the political spectrum, it logically doesn't tell us whether Medicare/Medicaid is left wing or right wing by your own criteria.
Right I think we're on the same page again, except I didn't say it was either. Your response was to Johnaw, which I merely commented that spending lots of money on public services isn't necessarily socialist. The key here is in the actual definition and the perceived definition (which I've also pointed out)
To explain, Spending lots of money on public health sounds socialist on the surface, but if all that money goes to your rich mates instead of the people who need it, then it's actually capitalist (one of the definitions of right wing is social stratification ie inequality, which is what the current public health system is in the US. Despite spending tonnes of cash on it, the rich get a *LOT* more benefit out of it than the poor.
So, you still have provided no convincing argument for the assertion that the US is "very rightwing and right extremist".
I pointed you to a wiki link that has all the definitions. Economics, social stratification (inequality), Nationalism, Populism, Religion etc is all much more extreme in the US than most other OECD nations.
My guess is that you aren't thinking at all and just repeat phrases you have picked up, like "very rightwing and right extremist".
If you go back through the thread, I didn't bring it up.
Once artificial intelligence takes over in medicine, medical research will grind to a halt.
Won't the AI do the research for us?
That's because it actually is a stated objective of socialism (and a few other authoritarian ideologies, both left and right). It is not a stated objective of capitalism.
No, it is simply the inevitable and natural result of implementing the stated objectives of socialism.
Capitalism, on the other hand, is an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state. "Spending lots of [public] money on public health" is not part of capitalist principles.
The wiki link talks about ideology, not outcomes. For example, believing that "inequality is natural and inevitable" is not the same as having a high degree of inequality. Furthermore, your beliefs about the situation in Europe are simply wrong. Many European nations are more capitalist, more stratified, more nationalistic, more populist, and more Christian than Americans.
No, but you defended it. And you gratuitously accused me of being "very right wing and authoritarian".
Unlikely. It could, but since we don't understand how human intelligence, including leaps of reason and intuition that can lead to incredible breakthroughs, I'm not too sure. Time will tell.
That's because it actually is a stated objective of socialism
Only if the money delivers actual healthcare. If it's simply a facade for diverting public money to your rich friends then it isn't. This is my point.
No, it is simply the inevitable and natural result of implementing the stated objectives of socialism.
This flies in the face of the facts. The best healthcare systems (ie the ones that deliver the most health to as much of the population as possible) are socialist.
As we've already established, corruption is neither socialist or capitalist, it is a problem of poor transparency and accountability.
The most successful systems tend to pick and choose the best qualities of both capitalism and socialism for the best outcomes.
The wiki link talks about ideology, not outcomes.
Which is point. America is ideology focused. Everything is based on the bible or the constitution or other 'ideals' rather than practical outcomes. This is what makes it 'extreme' rather than moderate.
Unlikely. It could, but since we don't understand how human intelligence, including leaps of reason and intuition that can lead to incredible breakthroughs, I'm not too sure. Time will tell.
So either AI does our jobs for us, or we continue to do it. In both scenarios the work is still being done, so I don't get your statement "Once artificial intelligence takes over in medicine, medical research will grind to a halt."
The best healthcare systems in the world are in the US, Europe, Japan, and Singapore. None of those are "socialist". Some of them are nationalized, others are mixed, yet others are fully private. Most of them are far less redistributive than the US system. Even the nationalized health care systems in the advanced countries only manage to exist because they are financed by market economies and have private components. Socialist healthcare systems (Venezuela, Cuba, USSR, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, etc.) suck badly.
Socialists have been making that point for more than a century; it's bullshit. Socialism results in massive corruption, economic failure, dictatorships, and eventually mass murder, each and every time. Those consequences are clearly unintended, but they are inevitable.
The best healthcare systems in the world are in the US, Europe, Japan, and Singapore. None of those are "socialist".
You just said the US was socialist because it spends the most public money on health. You can't have it both ways.
Socialists have been making that point for more than a century;
Cool story...
it's bullshit.
Because?
Socialism results in massive corruption, economic failure, dictatorships, and eventually mass murder, each and every time. Those consequences are clearly unintended, but they are inevitable.
http://www.lmfgtfy.com/?q=soci...
Most of these have higher standards of living and lower crime rates than the US. Cognitive dissonance much?
Why would I have "cognitive dissonance"? I can go live anywhere in Europe any time I want. Europe is great for rich folks and conservatives: lower taxes, less regulations, great real estate, government support for churches and healthcare, etc. I may buy a retirement home in Europe. I just happen to think that Europe is not as good as the US if you're young and want to succeed in life.
Where did I say that?
What I said is Try answering the question again: In what sense is the US "very rightwing and right extremist"?
Am I to understand you to say that you consider any country that isn't "socialist" to be "very rightwing and right extremist"?
My thesis is simply that "the US is NOT very rightwing and right extremist". I think the US and Western Europe are politically and economically pretty similar: they are highly developed democracies with massive social welfare systems, highly educated workers, low crime rates, and good social services.
Europe is great for rich folks and conservatives: lower taxes, less regulations,
Yeah sure...
I think the US and Western Europe are politically and economically pretty similar: they are highly developed democracies with massive social welfare systems, highly educated workers, low crime rates, and good social services.
Similar when compared to say Libya or Myanmar, but not so much when you only focus on 'like' nations
As a comparison of the top 38 economies (OECD), here's how the US is doing:
Life Expectancy 27/38
Educational Attainment 7/38
Years in Education 22/38
Homicide Rate 33/38
Working Hours 28/38
Voter Turnout 22/38
etc
If this was the World Cup the USA wouldn't make it past the first round. This should be concerning when you consider how much money is being spent.
I've lived in so-called 'socialist'** countries that hit #1 on some of these measures. How does that fit in with you 'thesis'?
No OECD member is socialist. Socialists are totalitarian mass murderers, and I would thank you to stop referring to Western democracies that way.
Yes: the US is about average among OECD nations, which is what you would expect for the biggest OECD member. (WIthout 10-20 million illegals and without Democrats f*cking up the lives of African Americans, the US would do even better.)
In any case, how does that support your view that the US is "very rightwing and right extremist"?
No OECD member is socialist. Socialists are totalitarian mass murderers, and I would thank you to stop referring to Western democracies that way.
Says you... http://www.lmfgtfy.com/?q=soci...
Yes: the US is about average among OECD nations, which is what you would expect for the biggest OECD member.
No, it is below average, and I would expect the richest nation to be at the top, or at least in the top 10. It is under-performing, mostly due to poor right wing policy. We know this because there is a clear pattern between not only successful nations (as per OECD), but even successful states within the US (more left wing states are represented towards the top, more right wings states toward the bottom). I get that you refuse to believe this because of cognitive dissonance, but the data disagrees with you.
(WIthout 10-20 million illegals and without Democrats f*cking up the lives of African Americans, the US would do even better.)
Yeah, yeah, whatever excuse you need to keep the cognitive dissonance alive...
In any case, how does that support your view that the US is "very rightwing and right extremist"?
We've already been over this. It's not my problem that you don't understand it.
You have not made a single argument to support the statement that "the US is very rightwing and right extremist". All you have done is repeatedly argued for the supposed benefits of socialism, argued that Western Europe is supposedly socialist, and argued that Western Europe is supposedly doing economically better than the US.
Yes, indeed, Google shows that there are lots of dumb, uninformed people who believe that Europe is socialist.
That's because your expectations are wrong. For example, beyond $2500/capita/year health care spending, life expectancy does not increase; that's not a US issue, it's true in Europe as well. Years in education and voter turnout are neither a sign of wealth nor a sign of positive outcomes. Etc.
The successful nations that are overwhelmingly run by right wing (Christian conservative) governments, you mean?
What you see when you look at the US data is that areas governed by Democrats have higher murder rates, higher poverty rates, and higher inequality, and those outcomes are directly attributable to Democratic policies.
In addition, Democrats have changed; they used to lean more towards liberalism, but over the last decade, they increasingly lean socialist (viz Sanders), so you can't judge their current policies by their past performance.
You have not made a single argument to support the statement that "the US is very rightwing and right extremist". All you have done is repeatedly argued for the supposed benefits of socialism, argued that Western Europe is supposedly socialist, and argued that Western Europe is supposedly doing economically better than the US.
If that's your interpretation then it's clear you don't really understand, so there's not much point continuing...
Well, since you haven't made any arguments, there is nothing to understand.
As for your foolish enthusiasm for socialism and for Europe, I have heard that many times before.