A) CNN didn't say anything about people with clearances, instead they divided the world into two groups, the media (where it's okay) and the rest, where it's not okay.
B) That part is explicitly covered in the Popehat article which I linked, anyhow.
C) Wikileaks publishes all verifiable and true material leaked to it and goes for maximum impact, but they're not a hacking group, they can only operate if they have leaks.
For most leaks, you can simply go to ABC / CBS / NBC and avoid playing spy. Wikileaks was needed here, because the media themselves are complicit in many of the things in the Podesta dump. I mean, we have emails like this one showing them going behind their own lawyers' backs to send donors to the Washington Post's party, after being forbidden to put it on the price sheet. That really looks like a campaign donation of some kind, and their own lawyers explicitly forbade it. This is just one of many, many, many such examples. With the media doing things behind everyone's back, how can we be expected to just shut up and trust them, as CNN tried to encourage?
> Unlike PKI, DKIM has no revocation list mechanism natively. If one were to steal the keys, the best anyone could do is say "No, really, that email that appears to be sent from me and signed by me really wasn't!"
INFORMATIVE NOTE: A key may also be revoked as described below. The distinction between revoking and removing a key selector record is subtle. When phasing out keys as described above, a signing domain would probably simply remove the key record after the transition period. However, a signing domain could elect to revoke the key (but maintain the key record) for a further period. There is no defined semantic difference between a revoked key and a removed key.
INFORMATIVE RATIONALE: If a private key has been compromised or otherwise disabled (e.g., an outsourcing contract has been terminated), a signer might want to explicitly state that it knows about the selector, but all messages using that selector should fail verification. Verifiers should ignore any DKIM-Signature header fields with a selector referencing a revoked key.
* One of the keys in this example belongs to Google. So our hypothetical attacker in this case needs both GMail's key and hillaryclinton.com's. And both cover the body of the message. Here's the signature from this email just so everyone is clear on what we're talking about: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=hillaryclinton.com; s=google;
h=from:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:date:message-id:subject:to:cc;
bh=EHIyNFKU1g6KhzxpAJQtxaW82g5+cTT3qlzIbUpGoRY=;
b=JgW85tkuhlDcythkyCrUMjPIAjHbUVPtgyqu+KpUR/kqQjE8+W23zacIh0DtVTqUGD
mzaviTrNmI8Ds2aUlzEFjxhJHtgKT4zbRiqDZS7fgba8ifMKCyDgApGNfenmQz+81+hN
2OHb/pLmmop+lIeM8ELXHhhr0m/Sd4c/3BOy8= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:from:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:date:message-id:subject:to:cc;
bh=EHIyNFKU1g6KhzxpAJQtxaW82g5+cTT3qlzIbUpGoRY=;
b=dEYKdN2vH085sl/02zUgJ1Lr66LV8lRV9Lrqx9SIpfiF1bOLLbIr1Au6AAY5vwg1vS
klK/TvacKT0j8aYADGNWP6BtG5XZ+IME6ydojlufQ3jqksqLkycSJ2ahYhxw4LmCii8n
kja2EKzRFcKGPnfhYnfwBCmIk/D5FWN6+yvpAYSmmZlxsR4b7mTJ8r/NmB7dKRIHeq8b
Why didn't they want us to know about it? Oh, because we have emails between CNN and the DNC, they leaked the debate questions. Then they brought Donna Brazille on there to tell us they were somehow modified. Except, not so fast, Donna: they have DKIM authentication, which provides non-repudiation. And make sure you actually read the damned DKIM headers, because they include the b and bh parameters. So if you try and tell me they only protect the headers, you're going to get a lecture on the DKIM specification, because you're not just wrong, you can be mathematically proven wrong.
Anyhow, there's no great loss to the clickbait sites. Good riddance to such. However, inasmuch as they believe they can use this to control what people say and believe, I can only remind them of the Streisand Effect and laugh. Google took down the video from this story quite a few times before they started allowing it once it hit the news: http://www.usatoday.com/story/...
In case you're wondering what Snopes says about it, they say it's "mixed." You see, there was a fender bender and the guy wanted to exchange insurance info before they brutally beat him and dragged him from the back of his own car, which they stole while nearly killing him.
Thing is, all the news feeds are manipulated on some level these days. Only question is who likes it and who doesn't.
I'm not sure there can be any one perfect defense against being manipulated. If anything it seems to depend on who has more "CPU" to devote to the task.
I'm not sure if I'm just becoming more aware of it or what, but manipulation has been getting more and more overt.
True enough, but you can have dispute even over items of mathematical truth. How many people still refuse to accept that 0.9999999... [repeated endlessly] = 1? Even if you show people that 1/9 = 0.1111111 [repeating] and multiply both sides by 9, they think there's a trick or a "last" 9 or something. I mean, I had a long argument over DKIM authorization and that's something where anyone can look up what the headers mean by spending mere seconds looking it up and where the truth or falsehood of the statement is literally mathematical.
It takes effort to analyze things. Not everyone has the time or energy to bother so they use their priors to know who to trust and nobody has any guarantee that those are right, the best we can hope is that people update sensibly when given information and they recognize when they're being manipulated.
Well I did goof, it's actually clintonemail.com. Funny you didn't mention that. Still, classified docs, non-gov server, so you can't very well leave that part out if you're going to say she didn't mishandle classified info. There are people in jail for less and intentionally negligent is a literal contradiction in terms if you bother to look at the definitions.
Now, I'm not perfect. I never said I was. I just said that I looked at the actual sources of evidence and came to my own conclusions. I don't read media articles for their opinion, I pull the factual statements out of them and then look for their sources. You can tell a whole lot of different stories about the same source material. I don't give a damn about their stories, I care about what facts they can bring to the table. And which ones they forget to mention.
That's why I can and h ave backed up my assertions with sources and facts. You'll never be satisfied with the evidence I put out there, I know that. It doesn't matter. Your problem either that you can't or you won't do the same. You and most others just sit there and insult me and never back a single one of your claims. That's mere contradiction, not argument, you're in the wrong department.
Now, I don't know how things will be in four years and neither do you. All I can tell you is that they're currently heading in absolutely the wrong direction to convince independents like myself. They will, in fact, just harden the opposition. But 4 years is a long time. They could learn their lessons by then. Honestly though? I wouldn't hold my breath, they're already doubling down on the things that helped them snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Now then, quick test of your filter bubble: how many references do you understand in this manga? Can you link to the relevant Wikileaks emails for the many references related to it? Can anyone claim to be an informed voter if you don't understand most of those references, even if you vehemently disagree with them? If you can do more than just rage, try proving it to me.
> Yes probably. Yet you didn't bother to provide a counter narrative. Or even a single link. Why do you think he's more effective at spreading his message than you are?
Funny how they modded you "Troll" for saying that, because it's completely true. They can't argue with anything other than just calling people names most of the time.
And on one of those few occasions they do bother to present a falsifiable claim? This happens.
Anyhow, it's clear they haven't learned anything whatsoever from this election, so you have 8 years of Trump to look forward to unless they figure it out.
[1] Refer to this old comment if you don't like reading raw HTML and for more context. It's an email thread of the DNC collaborating with Politifact.
> There's just no "there" there, since she forwarded pertinent records onto the government servers.
Hillaryclintonemail.com is not a "government server" in any meaningful sense. Nor are Yahoo & Gmail.
One of the emails they were worried about (which they discuss with all the uncleared people in the Podesta email chain...) was a classified picture of North Korea. Huma has been known to communicate with Wiener using Hillary's account. (Now do you see how she got sucked into the Wiener probe?)
You would know this if you researched this yourself. But that takes thinking. That takes work. You're not just wrong, you're provably wrong. Just how many new theories have we had saying Hillary did nothing wrong? Clinton has continually lied about what was found based on the evidence available at the time. Those theories of why she wasn't wrong keep getting blown out of the water as new leaks drip out. And the leaks keep coming out. They weren't just for this election.
I said that Newsweek's analysis does not appear to have included that document, not the FBI's. I do not have any reason to believe that Newsweek had early access to Wikileaks, nor was it mentioned in their analysis. Frankly, they're a bit slow to catch up with the times. For a bit of humor about that, see also: http://nypost.com/2016/11/09/n...
I've explained separately why I don't think the FBI will charge her: it would be pointless. So they came up with a self-contradictory statement about why they didn't file charges and simply explained what they found.
That aside, the Epstein thing in there is actually interesting. Yes, it's true that Trump was on that guys plane once, long before it came out that he was a pedo. Tons of celebrities have also been on that guy's plane, including Bill Clinton (20+ times).
As far as I know Trump has had nothing to do with the guy after knowing he was convicted as a pedo. Not everyone can say that...
Thanks. Just for the whole group going forward, while we shouldn't produce a twenty page briefing, it is helpful to include the hot button topics I may or will likely be asked, like HRC's emails, Benghazi, etc. so I can have them top of mind to draw from. This is especially true with any FOX interview. It helps me make my responses stronger. As I said to Luis, there's a lot in my head, the briefings help bring things about which I'm already familiar, to the top of my head!
Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone. From: Miranda, Luis Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2016 10:09 AM To: Geoff Burgan; Debbie Wasserman Schultz; Paustenbach, Mark; Ryan Banfill Cc: Kate Houghton Subject: RE: Nice job
Oh, and as I said on the phone, great job pivoting to the broader contrast and squeezing in the economy, jobs and 73 months of growth.
From: Miranda, Luis Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2016 9:59 AM To: Geoff Burgan; Debbie Wasserman Schultz; Paustenbach, Mark; Ryan Banfill Cc: Kate Houghton Subject: Nice job
I thought you did well and stayed calm and poised despite Wallace's hammering. Just a few thoughts:
Going forward I think you can start with the "I've cautioned on tone..." and then give the explanation about the context of the broader race and how substantive it has been.
On the email server. Clinton isn't the subject of the investigation, so that should be something we say up front. It's also not fair to compare her to past Secretaries of State who frankly didn't live in the digital age in the same way... The Bush Administration's use of email generally was lower, so was the Clinton Administration, because the Internet is actually a relatively new thing.
And the only missed opportunity I saw was reminding Wallace that this email server came about as a result of what the Republican leadership in the House acknowledged was a politically driven investigation meant to lower her poll numbers. The Benghazi committee cost taxpayers millions for Republicans to try to affect this presidential election.
Here's what's wrong with Jeb Bush saying Hillary Clinton is under FBI investigation
By Lauren Carroll on Thursday, January 14th, 2016 at 11:04 p.m.
If Hillary Clinton becomes president, she might find herself preoccupied with an FBI investigation, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush said at a Republican presidential debate in South Carolina.
"Sheâ(TM)s under investigation with the FBI right now," Bush said Jan. 14. "If she gets elected, her first 100 days â" instead of setting an agenda, she might be going back and forth between the White House and the court house."
Actually, Clinton is not under FBI investigation. The inquiry to which Bush refers revolves around the private email server Clinton used while serving as secretary of state. And it is not a criminal investigation.
Here are the facts.
In July 2015, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community sent what is called a security referral to members of the executive branch. A security referral is essentially a notification that classified information might exist in a location outside of the governmentâ(TM)s possession. In this case, the location was Clintonâ(TM)s privat
Actually, the anon is half-right in that a DKIM signature could only validate the headers and not the body depending on which parameters are included in the signature block.
The problem for this AC is that the actual signature I posted below does validate the body of this particular message, so they've been lied to and I can and did prove that just below in analyzing this particular DKIM signature.
Your link does not address the email between her & Colin Powell at all which kind of blows away any lack of intent, given that it details precisely how to sleaze your way around the law. That said, I will agree that I don't really expect her to get charged for that, given how many people have blatantly lied to Congress and gotten away with it in the past.
> Its not a matter of "control" but getting the truth out there.
They had a paid organization named Correct the Record working to do that constantly. Half the problem was that people didn't believe them due to all the times they could be proven to have lied (see my posts above for some examples). Most people didn't trust her to begin with and the provable scandals, like the leaked debate questions, hurt her with things like the bogus entries on the kill list.
> was pretty slanderous (blantent lies) and would under any normal circumstances (including him) be actionable in the court of law.
She's a public figure, so you have to prove actual malice.
> Virtually every fact-checking site has shown that 98% of what he uttered was a lie
Ask yourself instead why people didn't believe them, even when they were right. They also covered items that were matters of opinion (this comes into play anywhere we discuss motives) rather than fact, as well as predictions about the future.
> And Facebook (the "news" site it is (even though they keep claiming they are not) is doing nothing to stem the tide.
I don't even have a Facebook, but I wouldn't call it "news" and if they want to pick and choose what people can and cannot say there, they'll just drive people to other services. You're advocating censorship here and you don't appear to realize it. Sure, their site, their rules, but they're a business too and you shouldn't be shocked when people choose the highway instead of their way.
Slashdot Mirror
A) CNN didn't say anything about people with clearances, instead they divided the world into two groups, the media (where it's okay) and the rest, where it's not okay.
B) That part is explicitly covered in the Popehat article which I linked, anyhow.
C) Wikileaks publishes all verifiable and true material leaked to it and goes for maximum impact, but they're not a hacking group, they can only operate if they have leaks.
For most leaks, you can simply go to ABC / CBS / NBC and avoid playing spy. Wikileaks was needed here, because the media themselves are complicit in many of the things in the Podesta dump. I mean, we have emails like this one showing them going behind their own lawyers' backs to send donors to the Washington Post's party, after being forbidden to put it on the price sheet. That really looks like a campaign donation of some kind, and their own lawyers explicitly forbade it. This is just one of many, many, many such examples. With the media doing things behind everyone's back, how can we be expected to just shut up and trust them, as CNN tried to encourage?
> Unlike PKI, DKIM has no revocation list mechanism natively. If one were to steal the keys, the best anyone could do is say "No, really, that email that appears to be sent from me and signed by me really wasn't!"
Two points:
* There is a way to revoke the keys, even if it doesn't involve CRLs or OCSP -
* One of the keys in this example belongs to Google. So our hypothetical attacker in this case needs both GMail's key and hillaryclinton.com's. And both cover the body of the message. Here's the signature from this email just so everyone is clear on what we're talking about:
:cc; :message-id:subject:to:cc;
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=hillaryclinton.com; s=google;
h=from:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:date:message-id:subject:to
bh=EHIyNFKU1g6KhzxpAJQtxaW82g5+cTT3qlzIbUpGoRY=;
b=JgW85tkuhlDcythkyCrUMjPIAjHbUVPtgyqu+KpUR/kqQjE8+W23zacIh0DtVTqUGD
mzaviTrNmI8Ds2aUlzEFjxhJHtgKT4zbRiqDZS7fgba8ifMKCyDgApGNfenmQz+81+hN
2OHb/pLmmop+lIeM8ELXHhhr0m/Sd4c/3BOy8=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:from:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:date
bh=EHIyNFKU1g6KhzxpAJQtxaW82g5+cTT3qlzIbUpGoRY=;
b=dEYKdN2vH085sl/02zUgJ1Lr66LV8lRV9Lrqx9SIpfiF1bOLLbIr1Au6AAY5vwg1vS
klK/TvacKT0j8aYADGNWP6BtG5XZ+IME6ydojlufQ3jqksqLkycSJ2ahYhxw4LmCii8n
kja2EKzRFcKGPnfhYnfwBCmIk/D5FWN6+yvpAYSmmZlxsR4b7mTJ8r/NmB7dKRIHeq8b
I figured they were referencing this, actually -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I got logged out somehow, the parent was me.
What about CNN, that was lying about it being illegal to read Wikileaks? And yes, that was a lie, read this: https://popehat.com/2016/10/17...
Why didn't they want us to know about it? Oh, because we have emails between CNN and the DNC, they leaked the debate questions. Then they brought Donna Brazille on there to tell us they were somehow modified. Except, not so fast, Donna: they have DKIM authentication, which provides non-repudiation. And make sure you actually read the damned DKIM headers, because they include the b and bh parameters. So if you try and tell me they only protect the headers, you're going to get a lecture on the DKIM specification, because you're not just wrong, you can be mathematically proven wrong.
Anyhow, there's no great loss to the clickbait sites. Good riddance to such. However, inasmuch as they believe they can use this to control what people say and believe, I can only remind them of the Streisand Effect and laugh. Google took down the video from this story quite a few times before they started allowing it once it hit the news: http://www.usatoday.com/story/...
In case you're wondering what Snopes says about it, they say it's "mixed." You see, there was a fender bender and the guy wanted to exchange insurance info before they brutally beat him and dragged him from the back of his own car, which they stole while nearly killing him.
> Any agreements made in secret should simply be ignored. And the people who try to push them shot.
While I understand the sentiment, I would NOT call for shooting anyone I disagree with in this climate.
Especially not Hillary Clinton, who negotiated the TPP, only to turn against it later.
At times like this, I'd like to remember Google for having sold us out on the TPP:
https://blog.google/topics/pub...
Thanks for nothing, sellouts.
> It's not Trump's place, or the president's place to have her investigated.
That's why the AG appoints a special prosecutor and it follows a legal process.
The decision rests with the DoJ, who most certainly does have the place to have her investigated.
The Clinton Foundation and CGI dealings don't look very kosher. And there's someone who has been accusing her of rape for decades, yes.
It's at least as credible as the Jerry Spring producer's lawsuit (i.e. not very).
> o The whole "no-ties with Russia" thing, oops, lots of ties, plus wikileaks admitted by the Russians now;
Do you have a source on the Wikileaks thing?
Thing is, all the news feeds are manipulated on some level these days. Only question is who likes it and who doesn't.
I'm not sure there can be any one perfect defense against being manipulated. If anything it seems to depend on who has more "CPU" to devote to the task.
I'm not sure if I'm just becoming more aware of it or what, but manipulation has been getting more and more overt.
True enough, but you can have dispute even over items of mathematical truth. How many people still refuse to accept that 0.9999999... [repeated endlessly] = 1? Even if you show people that 1/9 = 0.1111111 [repeating] and multiply both sides by 9, they think there's a trick or a "last" 9 or something. I mean, I had a long argument over DKIM authorization and that's something where anyone can look up what the headers mean by spending mere seconds looking it up and where the truth or falsehood of the statement is literally mathematical.
It takes effort to analyze things. Not everyone has the time or energy to bother so they use their priors to know who to trust and nobody has any guarantee that those are right, the best we can hope is that people update sensibly when given information and they recognize when they're being manipulated.
Well I did goof, it's actually clintonemail.com. Funny you didn't mention that. Still, classified docs, non-gov server, so you can't very well leave that part out if you're going to say she didn't mishandle classified info. There are people in jail for less and intentionally negligent is a literal contradiction in terms if you bother to look at the definitions.
Now, I'm not perfect. I never said I was. I just said that I looked at the actual sources of evidence and came to my own conclusions. I don't read media articles for their opinion, I pull the factual statements out of them and then look for their sources. You can tell a whole lot of different stories about the same source material. I don't give a damn about their stories, I care about what facts they can bring to the table. And which ones they forget to mention.
That's why I can and h ave backed up my assertions with sources and facts. You'll never be satisfied with the evidence I put out there, I know that. It doesn't matter. Your problem either that you can't or you won't do the same. You and most others just sit there and insult me and never back a single one of your claims. That's mere contradiction, not argument, you're in the wrong department.
Now, I don't know how things will be in four years and neither do you. All I can tell you is that they're currently heading in absolutely the wrong direction to convince independents like myself. They will, in fact, just harden the opposition. But 4 years is a long time. They could learn their lessons by then. Honestly though? I wouldn't hold my breath, they're already doubling down on the things that helped them snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Now then, quick test of your filter bubble: how many references do you understand in this manga? Can you link to the relevant Wikileaks emails for the many references related to it? Can anyone claim to be an informed voter if you don't understand most of those references, even if you vehemently disagree with them? If you can do more than just rage, try proving it to me.
> Yes probably. Yet you didn't bother to provide a counter narrative. Or even a single link. Why do you think he's more effective at spreading his message than you are?
Funny how they modded you "Troll" for saying that, because it's completely true. They can't argue with anything other than just calling people names most of the time.
And on one of those few occasions they do bother to present a falsifiable claim? This happens.
It's hilarious to see the media who got this entire election wrong now trying to tell us whose fault it is.
The real question is who controls that truth meter and who they work with. [1]
Are they going to ban lies like this one from CNN? And yes, it is a clear lie.
Anyhow, it's clear they haven't learned anything whatsoever from this election, so you have 8 years of Trump to look forward to unless they figure it out.
[1] Refer to this old comment if you don't like reading raw HTML and for more context. It's an email thread of the DNC collaborating with Politifact.
> There's just no "there" there, since she forwarded pertinent records onto the government servers.
Hillaryclintonemail.com is not a "government server" in any meaningful sense. Nor are Yahoo & Gmail.
One of the emails they were worried about (which they discuss with all the uncleared people in the Podesta email chain...) was a classified picture of North Korea. Huma has been known to communicate with Wiener using Hillary's account. (Now do you see how she got sucked into the Wiener probe?)
You would know this if you researched this yourself. But that takes thinking. That takes work. You're not just wrong, you're provably wrong. Just how many new theories have we had saying Hillary did nothing wrong? Clinton has continually lied about what was found based on the evidence available at the time. Those theories of why she wasn't wrong keep getting blown out of the water as new leaks drip out. And the leaks keep coming out. They weren't just for this election.
Read them, or remain ignorant. Your choice.
I said that Newsweek's analysis does not appear to have included that document, not the FBI's. I do not have any reason to believe that Newsweek had early access to Wikileaks, nor was it mentioned in their analysis. Frankly, they're a bit slow to catch up with the times. For a bit of humor about that, see also: http://nypost.com/2016/11/09/n...
I've explained separately why I don't think the FBI will charge her: it would be pointless. So they came up with a self-contradictory statement about why they didn't file charges and simply explained what they found.
https://www.theguardian.com/us...
Nobody bought that one, not even Jezebel.
That aside, the Epstein thing in there is actually interesting. Yes, it's true that Trump was on that guys plane once, long before it came out that he was a pedo. Tons of celebrities have also been on that guy's plane, including Bill Clinton (20+ times).
As far as I know Trump has had nothing to do with the guy after knowing he was convicted as a pedo. Not everyone can say that...
Their Reddit post is a link to a Wikileaks email that's hard to read due to being HTML. So no, it really comes from Wikileaks, not Redddit.
Here, I'll copy paste the text from the HTML version for you so that you can read it a little more easily -
Source: https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emai...
Actually, the anon is half-right in that a DKIM signature could only validate the headers and not the body depending on which parameters are included in the signature block.
The problem for this AC is that the actual signature I posted below does validate the body of this particular message, so they've been lied to and I can and did prove that just below in analyzing this particular DKIM signature.
That's a rather odd thing to say when someone is pointing out that an analysis is incomplete because new evidence has been found since it was written.
The markets rebounded right back. Pundits can read whatever they want into stock movements, I'm not convinced it means anything.
Your link does not address the email between her & Colin Powell at all which kind of blows away any lack of intent, given that it details precisely how to sleaze your way around the law. That said, I will agree that I don't really expect her to get charged for that, given how many people have blatantly lied to Congress and gotten away with it in the past.
> Its not a matter of "control" but getting the truth out there.
They had a paid organization named Correct the Record working to do that constantly. Half the problem was that people didn't believe them due to all the times they could be proven to have lied (see my posts above for some examples). Most people didn't trust her to begin with and the provable scandals, like the leaked debate questions, hurt her with things like the bogus entries on the kill list.
> was pretty slanderous (blantent lies) and would under any normal circumstances (including him) be actionable in the court of law.
She's a public figure, so you have to prove actual malice.
> Virtually every fact-checking site has shown that 98% of what he uttered was a lie
Ask yourself instead why people didn't believe them, even when they were right. They also covered items that were matters of opinion (this comes into play anywhere we discuss motives) rather than fact, as well as predictions about the future.
> And Facebook (the "news" site it is (even though they keep claiming they are not) is doing nothing to stem the tide.
I don't even have a Facebook, but I wouldn't call it "news" and if they want to pick and choose what people can and cannot say there, they'll just drive people to other services. You're advocating censorship here and you don't appear to realize it. Sure, their site, their rules, but they're a business too and you shouldn't be shocked when people choose the highway instead of their way.