And when the men with gavels fail, there's an amendment between the first and third that exists explicitly for turning a corrupt government off and back on whether it likes it or not.
1. That's only seen as the case because they've been systematically deplatformed by twitter.
2. The idiotic notation that there are only two political perspectives is literally six times dumber than astrology.
I'm strongly left leaning, but more anti-authoritarian than left, so I'm seen as right wing buy left wing useful idiots because I oppose their aspirations of authority, and seen as left wing by right wing useful idiots because I oppose most of their social policy.
Gab is laudable for their free speech support. Smearing them is more reprehensible than being the mere host of speech you don't like will ever be.
>The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.
I agree with everything he said except instead of 'globalists' I would have said 'oligarchs'. Whether or not they're globalists or not is immaterial. They're the 0.1% who receive representation by congress when everyone else does not.
That they can be ousted or resisted by picking one of their political parties is laughable. They decide who wins the primaries, then we get to pick from their candidate pool: http://www.ted.com/talks/lawre...
The choice between D and R isn't freedom or representation, but a box to contain us.
You should because the dominant social networks are all trying to eat each others' user bases and we don't want there to be a clear winner. That's super bad for free speech.
The exact same thing happened in the '90s with online purchasing.
At first everybody thought it was crazy. "Who would give their credit card details to people over this new fangled Internet thing?" There were legitimate businesses and total scams. But things grew and grew, and now nobody bats an eye about one click purchasing on Amazon.
I figure this will go the same way. Right now it's the wild west, but things will settle down and eventually nobody will bat an eye about spending a few doge on an impulse.
The longer and harder I look at (particularly American) society, the more I think that a bunch of paper tiger (lawyers) are the front line that corrupt society for their benefit, and the benefit of their plutocrat owners. Maybe this isn't new, but it needs to end. And the only thing I think has any power to end it are brilliant guys like Snowden coupled with the Internet which circumvents the plutarchy's media oligopolies.
Don't let lawyers make up new ways for their masters to assert ownership over unownable things.
Intellectual Property is a farce indistinguishable from imaginary property. We didn't let any other kids get away with that bullshit when we were kids, why would we let them now?
If a tech company starts inventing ways to "protect" the rights of rich assholes, stop buying their stuff until the company goes the fuck under and is replaced by some honest pirates.
The founding fathers intended that the freedoms assigned by the Bill of Rights not be superseded by technology, bureaucracy, plutarchy, or dictatorship.
Anyone can transfer Bitcoins anywhere for free and that could put a dent in some banking transaction processing fees.
In other words, it's a lot more efficient and cuts out the now unnecessary plethora of middlemen.
Welcome to the future!
I'd would short sell stocks in banks & credit card processors if you're dumb enough to still have any. It may not be bitcoin, but it will be a digital distributed currency that kills the banks.
If it weren't for the continuous and ongoing bailouts they would have already collapsed and they are going to do so.
When I was 15 or so I didn't have a PC, so I programmed my TI-85. Then after loading some assembler games onto it that disabled its screensaver and breaking it, I got a TI-86. I wrote a two-player tic-tac-toe game (no computer player), a Chemistry program, a base-10 to binary converter that supported arbitrary length numbers (built in converter was way faster but overflowed on I think 16-bit numbers), oh and a Physics program.
I even sold a copy of the Chemistry program in High School. So technically I was a professional programmer (got paid for doing it, right?) by 17.
I'm now have a BS in Computer Science and I've been a programmer ~8 years specializing most recently in Java.
All of this could have been avoided if we changed out monetary system to one that doesn't rely on these parasitic banks not only controlling the quantity of currency available, but profiting on it through the age old practice of usury. All of our money is based on debt which directly profits the banks. Sovereign countries should control their currencies, not a private industry with a huge conflict of interest. Money should be created by spending it into existence to pay for public goods, services, and infrastructure, not created as debt owed to banks who then collect interest on it. The whole system is rigged in their favor and history has shown time and time again that they will manipulate entire countries' economies simply to increase their own personal profits. The fact that we continue to tolerate this monetary system blows my mind. Right now, banks rule countries through their economies, which is monumentally fucked up.
One man's nonsense petition is another man's heartfelt position. This is the core reason for the freedom of speech. Not silencing dissenting voices - particularly minority dissenting voices - is crucial to maintaining democratic distance from fascism.
Slashdot Mirror
And when the men with gavels fail, there's an amendment between the first and third that exists explicitly for turning a corrupt government off and back on whether it likes it or not.
When. Not 'if'.
>What is it about Facebook that makes it so special?
Their clout and the size of their userbase. Twitter and facebook are mainstream. They're cited and linked to on CNN/Fox/MSNBC.
Any other dumb questions?
The Internet treats censorship as damage, and routes around it.
I get pinged by recruiters constantly if I turn on the "I'm looking of a job" thing. Having an in-demand skillset may affect your mileage.
The reason the active users isn't very high is most people only use it when they're looking for a new job.
> catering primarily to US conservatives
1. That's only seen as the case because they've been systematically deplatformed by twitter.
2. The idiotic notation that there are only two political perspectives is literally six times dumber than astrology.
I'm strongly left leaning, but more anti-authoritarian than left, so I'm seen as right wing buy left wing useful idiots because I oppose their aspirations of authority, and seen as left wing by right wing useful idiots because I oppose most of their social policy.
Gab is laudable for their free speech support. Smearing them is more reprehensible than being the mere host of speech you don't like will ever be.
>The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.
—H. L. Mencken
So a Man In The Middle attack you opt into?
I agree with everything he said except instead of 'globalists' I would have said 'oligarchs'. Whether or not they're globalists or not is immaterial. They're the 0.1% who receive representation by congress when everyone else does not.
That they can be ousted or resisted by picking one of their political parties is laughable. They decide who wins the primaries, then we get to pick from their candidate pool: http://www.ted.com/talks/lawre...
The choice between D and R isn't freedom or representation, but a box to contain us.
>believe the NSA is better at the game than the Russians are
Why would you think that they are better? National pride? This neo-McCarthysim is just a distraction from the blatant corruption in the DNC.
Russia didn't write the emails, the DNC leadership did. And wikileaks, not Russia exposed them.
Remember, Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia!
WaPo which cannot be trusted: https://theintercept.com/2017/...
You should because the dominant social networks are all trying to eat each others' user bases and we don't want there to be a clear winner. That's super bad for free speech.
rekt
What if the connection was accidental/unintentional? Or some rogue process did it?
More a general question than this specific case, but just a thought.
This entire argument is a just a red herring. Whether it's worse or not somewhere else is wholly without relevance.
Laws don't make us free. Few restrictions do. Being able to do anything we want that doesn't adversely impact someone else does.
The exact same thing happened in the '90s with online purchasing.
At first everybody thought it was crazy. "Who would give their credit card details to people over this new fangled Internet thing?" There were legitimate businesses and total scams. But things grew and grew, and now nobody bats an eye about one click purchasing on Amazon.
I figure this will go the same way. Right now it's the wild west, but things will settle down and eventually nobody will bat an eye about spending a few doge on an impulse.
Am I the only one that is starting to think that everything wrong with society is caused by lawyers and their owners?
(Congress is 51% lawyers.)
The traitor's name is "Honorable" Robert J. Bryan.
I'll allow this.
Then why didn't they say something?
Because greedy scumbag (lawyer)s.
The longer and harder I look at (particularly American) society, the more I think that a bunch of paper tiger (lawyers) are the front line that corrupt society for their benefit, and the benefit of their plutocrat owners. Maybe this isn't new, but it needs to end. And the only thing I think has any power to end it are brilliant guys like Snowden coupled with the Internet which circumvents the plutarchy's media oligopolies.
Don't let lawyers make up new ways for their masters to assert ownership over unownable things.
Intellectual Property is a farce indistinguishable from imaginary property. We didn't let any other kids get away with that bullshit when we were kids, why would we let them now?
If a tech company starts inventing ways to "protect" the rights of rich assholes, stop buying their stuff until the company goes the fuck under and is replaced by some honest pirates.
The founding fathers intended that the freedoms assigned by the Bill of Rights not be superseded by technology, bureaucracy, plutarchy, or dictatorship.
They violated the bill of rights with their toys. They should be taken away, and the children who did it punished.
In other words, it's a lot more efficient and cuts out the now unnecessary plethora of middlemen.
Welcome to the future!
I'd would short sell stocks in banks & credit card processors if you're dumb enough to still have any. It may not be bitcoin, but it will be a digital distributed currency that kills the banks.
If it weren't for the continuous and ongoing bailouts they would have already collapsed and they are going to do so.
When I was 15 or so I didn't have a PC, so I programmed my TI-85. Then after loading some assembler games onto it that disabled its screensaver and breaking it, I got a TI-86. I wrote a two-player tic-tac-toe game (no computer player), a Chemistry program, a base-10 to binary converter that supported arbitrary length numbers (built in converter was way faster but overflowed on I think 16-bit numbers), oh and a Physics program.
I even sold a copy of the Chemistry program in High School. So technically I was a professional programmer (got paid for doing it, right?) by 17.
I'm now have a BS in Computer Science and I've been a programmer ~8 years specializing most recently in Java.
All of this could have been avoided if we changed out monetary system to one that doesn't rely on these parasitic banks not only controlling the quantity of currency available, but profiting on it through the age old practice of usury. All of our money is based on debt which directly profits the banks. Sovereign countries should control their currencies, not a private industry with a huge conflict of interest. Money should be created by spending it into existence to pay for public goods, services, and infrastructure, not created as debt owed to banks who then collect interest on it. The whole system is rigged in their favor and history has shown time and time again that they will manipulate entire countries' economies simply to increase their own personal profits. The fact that we continue to tolerate this monetary system blows my mind. Right now, banks rule countries through their economies, which is monumentally fucked up.
One man's nonsense petition is another man's heartfelt position. This is the core reason for the freedom of speech. Not silencing dissenting voices - particularly minority dissenting voices - is crucial to maintaining democratic distance from fascism.
The USA is a plutocracy disguised as a constitutional republic sold to the proletariat as a democracy.