Alternatives to online censorship

[TWPonKubuntu]

GG: I'm very aware of the possible futures. My use of "EOTW" only makes sense if we have a chance of survival and that is where the ability to create our own computer network may be useful.

I will be the first to admit that I'm not ready for many EOTW scenarios, but within the context of we computer geeks, I want the ability to share information, preferably somewhere above the level of a public newsletter or notes posted on a tree.

Assuming that we aren't working under a dystropian government, a small scale network is workable... If we have the equipment to assemble it. Sure, we might need to use "sneakernet" to move data between distant points, but I want to have that ability and the data in an accessible form.

The fact that such small 'nets might only have a few members, each, is not a factor in my plans to make such a network happen.

And I thought it was the guy with the white hat who wins...

[woodsmoke]

We are "tending" now to think of "online" as being on a cellphone but the internet through a wire and cable are "online" things also.

To that end...

Just as a comment, a student today was talking to other students and mentioned, in passing, that she and her hubby had moved into a new apartment and that:

BEFORE the cable / internet company would do ANYthing...

They BOTH had to "sign a paper" on which they "swore" that they would not use any kind of "torrent" such as Pirate Bay, etc. And if they did that they would be summarily cut off from both cable and the internet.

So...

This raises a couple of questions.

a) Can "we" now assume that the cable / internet providers now have the SPECIFIC capability to moniter ALL of their tens of thousands of users INDIVIDUALLY. to determine if "data" that is coming through the line to the person is FROM a torrent supplier?

this is NOT THE SAME as "throttling bandwidth" ...it is, apparently, the ability to watch one woman and her hubby to determine if they are using an "illegal" torrent... or just "a torrent" at least...

b) Or is it just a fake to try to stave off some people?

c) would a "torrent" only be registered to "the cable / internet " software as "a torrent"?

OR...can it discern if the "torrent" is a "pirated film" or is it a "Kubuntu torrent"?

If it does NOT distinguish betwen them...weelll.

d) What if... someone put Kubuntu on a "Pirate Bay" torrent thing... if the cable / internet company can only perceive " a torrent from Pirate Bay"...then...

e) if it does not "distinguish" but can "perceive" a "torrent" then...guess what...

Microsith would then have a defacto BLOCK against Linux, not by "stopping linux on the computer" but by stopping the movement of "linux" through the wires.

WHETHER OR NOT it was a "valid" torrent from a Kubuntu server.

this would be...

IN ADDITION to Sony(tm) having a defacto block to the "possibility" of harm because someone downloaded a film without paying for it..

just some questions, of little worth.

woodsmoke

[GreyGeek]

Switch your browser’s “Agent” to IE or Mac, or start using a VPN


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[sithlord48]

I canceled my G+ & YouTube and Gmail account a couple weeks ago after Google, Facebook and Twitter announced a "combined effort" to censor politically incorrect posts.

4 pages and no one has posted this

[GreyGeek]

4 pages and no one has posted this
(snipped comic)

That's because YT, Twitter and Facebook, even though owned by public corporations, have replaced the soap box in the community commons because THEY have become the new community commons. THEY asked, invited and begged people to join their forum when they first began. I was one who joined Google 10 years ago, maybe longer. THEY initially started out with the "Do no evil" motto, which after Microsoft's evil attracted me, but after they gained control of over the other online forums they took it upon themselves to do evil. IOW, they support the 1A ONLY for those who agree with them. That's why the number of Conservative Twitter & FB users is declining rapidly if they don't censor themselves, which is the same as being canceled. However, they reserve the 1A for their own ideologies.

They began censoring posts that didn't match the ideology held by the corporate leadership. Then they began blocking accounts for various lengths of time. Then they canceled accounts and banned politically incorrect users. BUT, that was not enough. So zealous in their "Progressive" ideology are they that they decided to search the web for posts by their users on other forums which didn't line up with their own political theology, and canceling their accounts if they found any. So, if I were a Google or Facebook users and they saw the posts I made in this forum they would use my posts here to cancel my accounts on their site.



They were not satisfied with even that. They lobbied Congress to modify the CDA section 230 so that they HAVE to censor "hate" speech. It's the FOSTA bill. It just so happens that they believe that anything a Conservative posts to their site is "hate" speech by definition because it disagrees with their own Marxist theology. Hate if they support the 2A. Hate if they support 1A. Hate if they point out the facts about Islam and its suppression of women. Hate if they support Christianity. Hate if they write against enlarging government control of our lives. Their dream is to turn America into the EU.

Pat Condell said it better than me:

A society afraid of free speech is afraid of itself.
Anyone who needs a safe space from other people’s opinions should be in therapy

FOSTA (& SESTA) will give Twitter, Google, FB and others license to censor without fear of contradictions. While purporting to be about protecting those sexually abused, it will end up being used as a bludgeon against all whose views are not "Progressive".
https://www.eff.org/fr/deeplinks/201...win-censorship
"H.R. 1865, the Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTA), allows for private lawsuits and criminal prosecutions against Internet platforms and websites, based on the actions of their users. Facing huge new liabilities, the law will undoubtedly lead to platforms policing more user speech."

"Under SESTA, states would be able to enact laws that censor the Internet in broad ways. As long as those laws claim to target sex traffickers, states could argue that they’re exempt from Section 230 protections. As Eric Goldman points out in his excellent analysis of SESTA, Congress should demand an inventory of existing state laws that would fall into this new loophole before even thinking about opening it."

IF one has to have their views approved by an authority (of any sort) before they post them online, then that person has no views worth posting, and even if they did post, they have become merely an echo chamber for the authority.


IMO, the target of this bill is to kill the Internet itself, except for those with approved political views. That sword can cut both ways. If I become censored my Internet use will drop drastically across all sites, or disappear entirely. I won't be alone and the economic woes that would result would affect massive numbers of businesses, including Google, YT, FB and all the other sites that have teamed up with those three.

[sithlord48]

The are NOT the new public meeting space they like many other places online are small self selected communites. Go move to a new community you will only be moving into more of an echo chamber.

This is what i read above..
"I signed up for <platform> and then they decided they have some kind of social responsibility. And the stuff i like was deamed not acceptable, so i will now go retreat to a place where people are more aligned with my point of view.."

[GreyGeek]

The are NOT the new public meeting space they like many other places online are small self selected communites. Go move to a new community you will only be moving into more of an echo chamber.

Those mentioned platforms ARE the new commons exactly because MOST Internet traffic and social interactions pass through them. Haven't you noticed? And, haven't you noticed that you can post two identical posts saying exactly the same thing except one uses "White" and the other uses "Black", or one uses "Union" and the other uses "Confederate", or one supports the 2A right to own and use an "AR-15" (or "gun" in general), and guess which one "violates" the vaguely written standards?

This is what i read above..
"I signed up for <platform> and then they decided they have some kind of social responsibility. And the stuff i like was deamed not acceptable, so i will now go retreat to a place where people are more aligned with my point of view.."

You make my point ... what is your definition of "social responsibility"? Is it socially responsible to declare that ALL White people are racists by virtue of their skin color? Of course not, but that post will survive on FB and one which says the same thing about Blacks will be censored. You aren't blind. You've seen examples of censorship which are so common yet so heavily biased against Conservatives but so forgiving of Progressives. Any effective post which supports Trump, for example, is censored while those critical of him or which appear to be supportive but written by illiterates are not.

[sithlord48]

Well considering I don't use facebook or twitter and I might goto youtube once in a while. My view of social responsibility doesn't matter. Its Ultimately the view of the board and stock holders of those companies that matters. What I have seen is people posting stuff that not allowed according to the terms of service and platforms are starting to crack down on that alot more. Im sure if we were to look at this banned content it would run quite a wide range of stuff. Its possible that some groups of people are more likey to be vocal about their content loss then others. Or some groups are more likey to post content that violates these terms.

edit:
I did a quick search (just now) on youtube of "pro trump" and "anti trump". currently on youtube there are over 2x the number of videos returned for the pro trump search. So the arguement that they auto take down stuff in support of trump doesnt seam to be true.

[GreyGeek]

Good points, seth. But, what matters more about the take downs is the deliberate defunding and isolating of channels that are very effective in presenting their viewpoints, vs letting the smucks post their garbage. Dave Cullen of "Computing Forever", Black Pigeon and others.

Remember "Yellow Journalism"? The Hurst Paper monopoly and news manipulation? "Fake News" of the past.
Here is TEDx talk by Sharyl Attkinsson on current "Fake News", and who originated the term. The answer surprised me.

[GreyGeek]

Pat Condell again, about YT censoring his latest video