There can only be fewer rules when there can be trust and accountability, and when it comes to the ISPS that's laughable. Title II was always a bandaid because congress was not fighting for the public interests, but were beholden to ISP lobbyists, and we happened to get lucky with Tom Wheeler. Well now the luck has run out, and the next few years will only show us what kind of damage a piece of shit shill at the helm of the FCC can accomplish.
If you think that deregulating ISPs in the vain hope that it will take down the major platforms a notch or two, without hurting consumers in the process, then you might have had a bit too much of the red colored koolaid to drink. Consumer protections are always reactionary, and for good reason.
They either have not found anything concrete, or there is a full on MIB situation, in which case, they sure as hell won't tell the world as there would be a massive shitstorm of craziness as people freaked out.
Why would we want to adjust our notion of being at the center of the universe with it revolving around us, when there is still yet holy land left to squable over? After all, such a realization would necessitate at least some changes, and there are plenty that seem awfully interested in maintaining the status quo.
That said, I'd like to hope we're at least of greater interest than just for an alien betting pool on when and how we blow ourselves up.
So your answer to the unchecked growth and increasing influence of the major platforms, is to deregulate other entrenched corporate interests in some strange hope that somehow the two will cancel out each other's negative effects. What can possibly go wrong?
Oh I know.. the likes of Comcast and Verizon trying to imitate the way that google and facebook runs their platforms. How're you going to like that? You're going to tell me they are going to pretend nothing changed, and won't innovate according to what they can get away with?
So your solution to limiting the influence of Google/FB is to give corporations like Comcast and Verizon even more influence and even more leverage on how they extract profits from a captive audience. It so self defeating, because legislative effort is going to have to be poured into enacting net neutrality laws to keep the likes of Comcast from ruining the internet experience out of short sighted greed - when instead, we could be focusing on enacting privacy laws that limit the ability for Facebook and Google to profit from our personal information.
You're literally throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Yeah? The irony of those crowing about the abuses of Google and Facebook censorship and the like is that the ISPs are in a position to hamper any competition to those services. Don't like Youtube? Then try the newest and best free speech platform... which won't exist, because the established services will get around data usage caps and upstarts will have an even greater uphill battle.
And you completely ignore the very post you were responding to. I can go to great lengths to avoid Google, Facebook, etc. but I can't avoid dealing with my isp, especially when they have free reign to manipulate and restrict my data as they see fit, AND they are the only broadband provider available!
Hating Nazis is not a vice. The GP is correct to have that opinion, it's normal and healthy to hate things that want to murder massive segments of the population for no good reason.
Such well trained Pavlovian dogs will salivate on command, even when there is no real meat to be had. Thus the definition of nazi can and will be reinterpreted to fit the situation as desired, to justify pretty much anything.
And so now the group that correctly argued that burning the flag was protected free speech, has now coined the term "punching nazis" as the rationale to suppress and attack those whose speech they disapprove of.
"I disagree with what you say but will fight to the death for your right to say it" is no longer valid.
"I will fight all that disagree with what I say, including doxxing, harrassment, shouting down and deplatforming, because reasons." is now in full effect.
"Somehow, we got into a discussion of the responsibility of management. Holden made the point that management's responsibility is to the shareholders – that's the end of it. And I objected. I said, 'I think you're absolutely wrong. Management has a responsibility to its employees, it has a responsibility to its customers, it has a responsibility to the community at large.' And they almost laughed me out of the room."- David Packard
I suspect that just as you were unfairly downmodded for stating what has been obvious to anyone who gets a variety of viewpoints and independent news from youtube, that so-called progressives are very eager to censor any opinion that falls outside of their doctrine. So Youtube already has a volunteer army to abuse the reporting system and put a spotlight on videos for demonetization when it comes to conservatives, regardless of whether or not their algorithm dislikes the wording of the video's title.
As an aside, I know I was targeted for reeducation when I started getting 'recommended channels' such as 'youtube creators for change'. Such highly emotionally driven videos with plenty of cultural egalitarianism bullshit sprinkled on top are as difficult to suffer through as those dedicated to recruiting religious followers.
Anyone else concerned that his tool clearly lists out peoples names and addresses?
Yes, as American Airlines would say, those in favor of maintaining net neutrality would need to be reaccommodated. I don't doubt that my ISP will find a way to do so.
"Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day." -- Theodore Roosevelt - An Autobiography, 1913
I'd say its been the status quo further back than Eisenhower.
No, I understand the point you're making about a vetting process. It seems to be like a certificate authority, but for personal identification rather than facilitating ssl encryption. I like the idea, as we need a reliable method of identification that isn't based on biometrics.
I'm just reminded how at one time it was actually promised that social security numbers would never be used for identification purposes, and well, we know how that turned out. So such a system would start out voluntary and optional and benign at first, then slow morphing to the point where it becomes mandatory and a tool for control, and by its very nature allowing for perfect enforcement. Have a look at the 'social credit system' being implemented in China right now for an example of something that would give even give George Orwell nightmares, and see how a method of state run cryptographic identification would compliment that.
You're right; we need a system like the one you're proposing. It just is such a shame that we can't trust it'll be implemented with the checks and balances it would require so as not to be abused.
I am pushing for USPO to offer up personal digital keys that are FULLY VETTED (i.e. like passport, pix and fingerprint) and they would then have a distributed network of the key-servers. And when it is trivial for somebody to obtain a single digital-key, then e-mail, blogs, etc will become not just secured, but will also be less spam, and BS that we see even in in/.
Such a personal digital keys would inevitably translate into becoming a national id card with a chip to be stored therein. It would definitely be better than the antiquated system of using personal info to verify identity, which we know to be utterly compromised.
It'll be a critical piece for the dystopian hell I'm sure we're headed towards, since congress has long since abandoned the interests of the public to the tender mercies of rapacious corporations. When you get banned for being a persona non grata, things really will get interesting.
And when inevitably the killer robots run amok, or there needs to be a false flag operation, foreign adversaries will make convenient scapegoats too. Start a narrative based on the most flimsiest of evidence and have your puppet news media relentlessly promote it, and in no time at all useful idiots will speak of it in de facto terms.
Perhaps when robocallers became a thing, and mass mailing became so inexpensive that stuffing people's mailboxes full of paper spam became commonplace. Technology allowed such public index to be readily exploited, and greed saw to it that it was.
Even with an unlisted number, I still have to set my phone to not ring unless the caller is already in my list of contacts. I'm sure it won't be long though till even those numbers are spoofed, since so much of our personal data is bartered and traded.
Oh, flamebait is it? Here's something else to consider: Compared to the candidate that admittedly had no issue in maintaining private and public positions, there is every reason to believe that Sanders would have protected net neutrality.The guy that consistently polled ahead of Trump.
But it just had to be her turn, by any means necessary too. So you want to thank Trump voters, you really ought to be thanking yourself.
Another die hard clinton loyalist who thinks they can throw shit into the fan and that it'll only land on Trump voters.
We're supposed to believe that someone who refuses to release the transcripts of their $500k speeches would have been the stalwart defender of net neutrality, who is so corrupt as to be laughable. The only mystery is what the actual dollar amount of the value of net neutrality would be, for someone who even steals the campaign contributions for the downticket candidates in their party.
You can't blame voters when your party can't even live up to its own namesake and cheated Sanders. Try looking in a mirror for once.
One just needs to look at how Jordan Peterson was treated by the SJW controlled social media to understand that using AI to punish thoughtcrime and stifle dissent is inevitable. The corporations that assume the role as institutions in society will dictate the terms for our participation as merely being something as simple as trying to appease a complex and obfuscated algorithm.
To get a glimpse of this wonderful future waiting for us, have a look at what China is already doing with their own social credit system, that will punish you for dissent.
Facebook already admitted to conducting experiments on manipulating user emotions. Developing AI to accurately detect if someone is depressed would make sense as they would need to be able to determine how effective their methods are.
The problem of course with a loopback vpn as a way of firewalling comes when you want to actually encrypt your traffic. I'm not aware of an android app that allows both.
Net neutrality might be won back with Blue Team temporarily, but only because it benefits the position of two of the largest internet platforms that are fancying themselves as arbiters of acceptable political speech and news for the masses. Anything good for the public will come as an unintentional byproduct of serving their own interests.
It's rinse and repeat in an endless cycle where one side that fucks us over to the point where voters get pissed and toss them out in favor of the other side that fucks us over. TPTB know full well that most people will reliably foam at the mouths and chase their own tails from whatever agitprop is tailored to suit their tribal interests. Thus we saw the occupy movement crushed and Sanders political revolution strangled in the crib, and pay no attention because the Russians have supernatural powers of influence.
That said, I appreciate the work of Ron Wyden. Justice Democrats are also looking like a good third party alternative.
Sure seems like this sort of thing already happens on Slashdot. Ever notice how quickly any post expressing conservative positions is moderated to -1? It's becoming very obvious that there's a real effort to silence conservative views here.
It really just depends on the time of day, it seems. Earlier someone was complaining about Slashdot being a conservative echo chamber, and being unfairly censored as a result. It might even be a virtue that Slashdot gets accused of being both a liberal and conservative echo chamber, but then it may also depend on who the editor is for that particular article with their unlimited mod points. There is another small possibility that when lacking a convincing argument, blaming the 'other' is also a convenient excuse.
If there is evidence of anything here, it's that disagreement with conservative views is not tolerated and his supporters attempt to silence them.
People having access to Damore's original memo are able to directly observe that it is not actually raining as they are being told, and have come to the conclusion that their legs are indeed being pissed on.
Rather than accept the possibility of being fundamentally wrong on an issue that is obvious to those that want to inform themselves and come to their own conclusions, it is now deemed necessary to play the victim card. Blaming the 'other' is the existing conditioned response, and thus there exists a collective of conservatives on slashdot that will actively undermine and suppress any and all enlightened viewpoints.
Bingo. Disagreement is not simply a differing point of view or counter-argument, not even devil's advocate or an opportunity to debate and explore the issue to those people. They consider it lying and trolling. They will not tolerate it.
What makes this statement the most astounding to me is the very nature in which Damore himself has been treated, and continues to be treated. I already miss the signature that declares all critics of SWJ to be fuckwits, as that would have made this even more ironic.
What an idea: an internet without two of the most privacy invasive corporations there is, which are already omnipresent and pervasive, and where extraordinary measures must be taken to not provide them data on your browsing behavior.
That the mere suggestion of not being subject to Google and Facebook data harvesting is to invite flamebait and troll moderation, is also interesting. I didn't realize such an idea was so verboten. Duly noted.
Fair enough. Could you be specific about the hyperbole that is being used though? Because in the AC's comment that was modded into oblivion I didn't see anything that could not be backed up with examples such as the ones I mentioned. Some of the stupidity may also include the infantile 'safe spaces'.
It is also difficult for me to find hyperbole there when Antifa is putting up posters on campuses of people's faces that they've decided deserve harassment or worse.
Slashdot Mirror
There can only be fewer rules when there can be trust and accountability, and when it comes to the ISPS that's laughable. Title II was always a bandaid because congress was not fighting for the public interests, but were beholden to ISP lobbyists, and we happened to get lucky with Tom Wheeler. Well now the luck has run out, and the next few years will only show us what kind of damage a piece of shit shill at the helm of the FCC can accomplish.
If you think that deregulating ISPs in the vain hope that it will take down the major platforms a notch or two, without hurting consumers in the process, then you might have had a bit too much of the red colored koolaid to drink. Consumer protections are always reactionary, and for good reason.
They either have not found anything concrete, or there is a full on MIB situation, in which case, they sure as hell won't tell the world as there would be a massive shitstorm of craziness as people freaked out.
Why would we want to adjust our notion of being at the center of the universe with it revolving around us, when there is still yet holy land left to squable over? After all, such a realization would necessitate at least some changes, and there are plenty that seem awfully interested in maintaining the status quo.
That said, I'd like to hope we're at least of greater interest than just for an alien betting pool on when and how we blow ourselves up.
So your answer to the unchecked growth and increasing influence of the major platforms, is to deregulate other entrenched corporate interests in some strange hope that somehow the two will cancel out each other's negative effects. What can possibly go wrong?
Oh I know.. the likes of Comcast and Verizon trying to imitate the way that google and facebook runs their platforms. How're you going to like that? You're going to tell me they are going to pretend nothing changed, and won't innovate according to what they can get away with?
So your solution to limiting the influence of Google/FB is to give corporations like Comcast and Verizon even more influence and even more leverage on how they extract profits from a captive audience. It so self defeating, because legislative effort is going to have to be poured into enacting net neutrality laws to keep the likes of Comcast from ruining the internet experience out of short sighted greed - when instead, we could be focusing on enacting privacy laws that limit the ability for Facebook and Google to profit from our personal information.
You're literally throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Yeah? The irony of those crowing about the abuses of Google and Facebook censorship and the like is that the ISPs are in a position to hamper any competition to those services. Don't like Youtube? Then try the newest and best free speech platform... which won't exist, because the established services will get around data usage caps and upstarts will have an even greater uphill battle.
And you completely ignore the very post you were responding to. I can go to great lengths to avoid Google, Facebook, etc. but I can't avoid dealing with my isp, especially when they have free reign to manipulate and restrict my data as they see fit, AND they are the only broadband provider available!
Hating Nazis is not a vice. The GP is correct to have that opinion, it's normal and healthy to hate things that want to murder massive segments of the population for no good reason.
Such well trained Pavlovian dogs will salivate on command, even when there is no real meat to be had. Thus the definition of nazi can and will be reinterpreted to fit the situation as desired, to justify pretty much anything.
And so now the group that correctly argued that burning the flag was protected free speech, has now coined the term "punching nazis" as the rationale to suppress and attack those whose speech they disapprove of.
"I disagree with what you say but will fight to the death for your right to say it" is no longer valid.
"I will fight all that disagree with what I say, including doxxing, harrassment, shouting down and deplatforming, because reasons." is now in full effect.
That's why this is one of my favorite quotes:
"Somehow, we got into a discussion of the responsibility of management. Holden made the point that management's responsibility is to the shareholders – that's the end of it. And I objected. I said, 'I think you're absolutely wrong. Management has a responsibility to its employees, it has a responsibility to its customers, it has a responsibility to the community at large.' And they almost laughed me out of the room."- David Packard
I suspect that just as you were unfairly downmodded for stating what has been obvious to anyone who gets a variety of viewpoints and independent news from youtube, that so-called progressives are very eager to censor any opinion that falls outside of their doctrine. So Youtube already has a volunteer army to abuse the reporting system and put a spotlight on videos for demonetization when it comes to conservatives, regardless of whether or not their algorithm dislikes the wording of the video's title.
As an aside, I know I was targeted for reeducation when I started getting 'recommended channels' such as 'youtube creators for change'. Such highly emotionally driven videos with plenty of cultural egalitarianism bullshit sprinkled on top are as difficult to suffer through as those dedicated to recruiting religious followers.
Anyone else concerned that his tool clearly lists out peoples names and addresses?
Yes, as American Airlines would say, those in favor of maintaining net neutrality would need to be reaccommodated. I don't doubt that my ISP will find a way to do so.
"Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day." -- Theodore Roosevelt - An Autobiography, 1913
I'd say its been the status quo further back than Eisenhower.
No, I understand the point you're making about a vetting process. It seems to be like a certificate authority, but for personal identification rather than facilitating ssl encryption. I like the idea, as we need a reliable method of identification that isn't based on biometrics.
I'm just reminded how at one time it was actually promised that social security numbers would never be used for identification purposes, and well, we know how that turned out. So such a system would start out voluntary and optional and benign at first, then slow morphing to the point where it becomes mandatory and a tool for control, and by its very nature allowing for perfect enforcement. Have a look at the 'social credit system' being implemented in China right now for an example of something that would give even give George Orwell nightmares, and see how a method of state run cryptographic identification would compliment that.
You're right; we need a system like the one you're proposing. It just is such a shame that we can't trust it'll be implemented with the checks and balances it would require so as not to be abused.
I am pushing for USPO to offer up personal digital keys that are FULLY VETTED (i.e. like passport, pix and fingerprint) and they would then have a distributed network of the key-servers. And when it is trivial for somebody to obtain a single digital-key, then e-mail, blogs, etc will become not just secured, but will also be less spam, and BS that we see even in in /.
Such a personal digital keys would inevitably translate into becoming a national id card with a chip to be stored therein. It would definitely be better than the antiquated system of using personal info to verify identity, which we know to be utterly compromised.
It'll be a critical piece for the dystopian hell I'm sure we're headed towards, since congress has long since abandoned the interests of the public to the tender mercies of rapacious corporations. When you get banned for being a persona non grata, things really will get interesting.
And when inevitably the killer robots run amok, or there needs to be a false flag operation, foreign adversaries will make convenient scapegoats too. Start a narrative based on the most flimsiest of evidence and have your puppet news media relentlessly promote it, and in no time at all useful idiots will speak of it in de facto terms.
Perhaps when robocallers became a thing, and mass mailing became so inexpensive that stuffing people's mailboxes full of paper spam became commonplace. Technology allowed such public index to be readily exploited, and greed saw to it that it was.
Even with an unlisted number, I still have to set my phone to not ring unless the caller is already in my list of contacts. I'm sure it won't be long though till even those numbers are spoofed, since so much of our personal data is bartered and traded.
Oh, flamebait is it? Here's something else to consider: Compared to the candidate that admittedly had no issue in maintaining private and public positions, there is every reason to believe that Sanders would have protected net neutrality.The guy that consistently polled ahead of Trump.
But it just had to be her turn, by any means necessary too. So you want to thank Trump voters, you really ought to be thanking yourself.
Another die hard clinton loyalist who thinks they can throw shit into the fan and that it'll only land on Trump voters.
We're supposed to believe that someone who refuses to release the transcripts of their $500k speeches would have been the stalwart defender of net neutrality, who is so corrupt as to be laughable. The only mystery is what the actual dollar amount of the value of net neutrality would be, for someone who even steals the campaign contributions for the downticket candidates in their party.
You can't blame voters when your party can't even live up to its own namesake and cheated Sanders. Try looking in a mirror for once.
One just needs to look at how Jordan Peterson was treated by the SJW controlled social media to understand that using AI to punish thoughtcrime and stifle dissent is inevitable. The corporations that assume the role as institutions in society will dictate the terms for our participation as merely being something as simple as trying to appease a complex and obfuscated algorithm.
To get a glimpse of this wonderful future waiting for us, have a look at what China is already doing with their own social credit system, that will punish you for dissent.
Facebook already admitted to conducting experiments on manipulating user emotions. Developing AI to accurately detect if someone is depressed would make sense as they would need to be able to determine how effective their methods are.
The problem of course with a loopback vpn as a way of firewalling comes when you want to actually encrypt your traffic. I'm not aware of an android app that allows both.
Net neutrality might be won back with Blue Team temporarily, but only because it benefits the position of two of the largest internet platforms that are fancying themselves as arbiters of acceptable political speech and news for the masses. Anything good for the public will come as an unintentional byproduct of serving their own interests.
It's rinse and repeat in an endless cycle where one side that fucks us over to the point where voters get pissed and toss them out in favor of the other side that fucks us over. TPTB know full well that most people will reliably foam at the mouths and chase their own tails from whatever agitprop is tailored to suit their tribal interests. Thus we saw the occupy movement crushed and Sanders political revolution strangled in the crib, and pay no attention because the Russians have supernatural powers of influence.
That said, I appreciate the work of Ron Wyden. Justice Democrats are also looking like a good third party alternative.
Sure seems like this sort of thing already happens on Slashdot. Ever notice how quickly any post expressing conservative positions is moderated to -1? It's becoming very obvious that there's a real effort to silence conservative views here.
It really just depends on the time of day, it seems. Earlier someone was complaining about Slashdot being a conservative echo chamber, and being unfairly censored as a result. It might even be a virtue that Slashdot gets accused of being both a liberal and conservative echo chamber, but then it may also depend on who the editor is for that particular article with their unlimited mod points. There is another small possibility that when lacking a convincing argument, blaming the 'other' is also a convenient excuse.
If there is evidence of anything here, it's that disagreement with conservative views is not tolerated and his supporters attempt to silence them.
People having access to Damore's original memo are able to directly observe that it is not actually raining as they are being told, and have come to the conclusion that their legs are indeed being pissed on.
Rather than accept the possibility of being fundamentally wrong on an issue that is obvious to those that want to inform themselves and come to their own conclusions, it is now deemed necessary to play the victim card. Blaming the 'other' is the existing conditioned response, and thus there exists a collective of conservatives on slashdot that will actively undermine and suppress any and all enlightened viewpoints.
Bingo. Disagreement is not simply a differing point of view or counter-argument, not even devil's advocate or an opportunity to debate and explore the issue to those people. They consider it lying and trolling. They will not tolerate it.
What makes this statement the most astounding to me is the very nature in which Damore himself has been treated, and continues to be treated. I already miss the signature that declares all critics of SWJ to be fuckwits, as that would have made this even more ironic.
What an idea: an internet without two of the most privacy invasive corporations there is, which are already omnipresent and pervasive, and where extraordinary measures must be taken to not provide them data on your browsing behavior.
That the mere suggestion of not being subject to Google and Facebook data harvesting is to invite flamebait and troll moderation, is also interesting. I didn't realize such an idea was so verboten. Duly noted.
Fair enough. Could you be specific about the hyperbole that is being used though? Because in the AC's comment that was modded into oblivion I didn't see anything that could not be backed up with examples such as the ones I mentioned. Some of the stupidity may also include the infantile 'safe spaces'.
It is also difficult for me to find hyperbole there when Antifa is putting up posters on campuses of people's faces that they've decided deserve harassment or worse.