SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the businesses-choosing-their-customers dept.
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-38076579
A leading ad exchange has blacklisted Breitbart News, which until recently was run by one of US President-elect Donald Trump's closest advisers.
AppNexus said it would no longer allow Breitbart to sell ad space via its platform, after determining that the site had broken its code on hate speech and incitement to violence.
Breitbart responded saying it "has always and continues to condemn racism and bigotry in any form".
AppNexus has not given examples.
But a spokesman said a "human audit" of Breitbart had flagged several articles that had caused it concern because of the language they had featured.
"We use a number of third-party standards to determine what is and isn't hate speech, and if we detect a pattern of speech that could incite violence or discrimination against a minority group, we determine that to be non-compliant and we simply won't serve ads against it," AppNexus's spokesman Joshua Zeitz told the BBC.
"I'm not going to put the examples out there because I'm not going to engage in a tit-for-tat on what is compliant."
(Score: 3, Funny) by Bot on Saturday November 26 2016, @02:44PM
> "a pattern of speech that could incite violence or discrimination against a minority group"
Implying inciting violence or discrimination against a majority group is OK?
I dunno about you, but I can always find a minority to which I belong.
Kill -9 to shitty systemd!!! (this is not hate speech: thank you, Debian!)
Account abandoned.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday November 26 2016, @04:24PM
Look, all AppNexus is doing here is acknowledging that minorities are violent and can be set off by anything -- and if you've ever been around them, you know it to be true. They're like rabid dogs, one moment they're cool with you and the next they're trying to bite your face off because they thought you were looking at them the wrong way. They're pure savages. This wasn't a problem a few years ago when minorities had no internet access, but now they do.
And until we can round them all up and put them in the big house where they belong, this is a decent interim solution, though we know from history that appeasement doesn't work in the long-term without a stick behind that carrot.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Saturday November 26 2016, @06:05PM
I of course did not RTFA, but what you say is not what I quoted, it is the opposite. Violence towards the minority vs. from the minority.
Other problem, according to that logic we should remove crucifixes not to make those Muslims feel offended by it?
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 26 2016, @02:51PM
Cue the morons who don't know what "censorship" means in 3 . . . 2 . . . 1 . . .
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 26 2016, @07:15PM
it's only censorship when the government does it!!1
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 26 2016, @08:44PM
(Score: 5, Informative) by bradley13 on Saturday November 26 2016, @03:05PM
From TFA, some sample articles of concern seem to be:
The fact is, women are more easily rattled by nastiness than men. That’s a stereotype, but it’s also true — in the landmark Pew study on online harassment, women were more than twice as likely as men to say they were “very upset” by online harassment. That’s why, despite the fact that men are more likely to face abuse online, it’s mostly women you hear complaining about it
The Civil War was not fought over slavery, but in defence of states’ rights. As for secession, the very existence of the United States derived from its secession from the British Crown. Why did the South, then, not have the right to secede in turn from a Union grown intolerable to it, with Abraham Lincoln assuming the role of George III?
Twenty-seven per cent of those polled in the United Kingdom say they had sympathy with the attacks on Charlie Hebdo – the French satirical magazine that published cartoons of the Muslim prophet Muhammed last year, with 78 per cent supporting punishment for the publication of cartoons featuring Muhammed and 68 per cent supporting the arrest and prosecution of British people who “insult Islam.”
The first two are clearly opinion pieces. Whether you agree or disagree with their premises, they are hardly inciting violence. The article about women was written by Milo - what a surprise that it is deliberately provocative. The third article discusses facts shown by numerous studies: Lots of muslims believe that their religion gives them the right to commit violence, and they hold Sharia law above the law of the countries they live in.
All in all, none of it is "hate speech", a term which apparently means anything that progressives dislike.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 26 2016, @03:42PM
So in light of that, you pick your own examples to show that they are wrong? Seriously?
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 26 2016, @03:48PM
> The third article discusses facts shown by numerous studies: Lots of muslims believe
Goebbels is grinning up at you from Hell.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 26 2016, @03:59PM
Even Goebbels was right a couple times in his life, nitwit.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 26 2016, @04:32PM
When "the nazis got some things right" is your defense, you've already lost the argument.
The one thing that the nazis very much got wrong was religious bigotry. That was pretty much the central wrongness of their entire philosophy.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 26 2016, @07:15PM
But what about good fashion and being snappy dressers?
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday November 26 2016, @04:33PM
This is true. Muslims are savages, and their beliefs are incompatible with those of Westerners. Islam is the sole cause of the Dark-Ages of the Middle East, and is the cause of all the shit going on there now. America is dumb to meddle with the societies of such savages, because they are animals, and even the most uncivilized of us cannot fully grasp or understand Islamic brutality.
Not only are they brutal, but extremely inbred. They're basically rabid animals who need to be put down. This [turner.com] is the mascot, the Coachella Arab, of a school I played football against way back before Coachella hosted that overpriced corporate pseudo-grassroots music festival of pop shite. Isn't that guy an evil, mean-looking bastard? That's what Muslims are. Evil, mean-looking bastards. And we, with the help of Jesus Christ, will exterminate them from the face of the earth and send them to hell where they belong. Amen. God Bless.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 26 2016, @05:06PM
Nice troll face today, I just hope the crazies understand the satire.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday November 26 2016, @05:17PM
What satire?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 26 2016, @05:43PM
Nice satire. The alternative is you are a complete idiot inciting violence. And idiots that incite violence should deserve no better fate than burning in hell.
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday November 26 2016, @05:57PM
Bringing physical violence to a fight of words -- spoken like a true Muslim!
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 26 2016, @06:52PM
Shut up you white skinned nigger.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Saturday November 26 2016, @06:43PM
I know you're attempting to go for funny, but honestly, you ranted a little too much and blew it. Though, the faux god fearing stuff at the end was a good cap!
(Score: 1) by charon on Sunday November 27 2016, @01:43AM
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 26 2016, @04:54PM
> they hold Sharia law above the law of the countries they live in.
59% of american christians say they are christian first and american second
only 47% of american muslims say they are muslim first and american second
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/08/22/gw.poll/index.html [cnn.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 26 2016, @05:03PM
I always suspected that the more hardcoee christian Americans would be the greatest threat to our country, I don't think they'd appreciate such irony...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 26 2016, @06:17PM
Timothy McVeigh [wikipedia.org] disagrees with you.
(Score: 2) by Entropy on Saturday November 26 2016, @06:28PM
Or perhaps the islamic terrorists that were polled lied..
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 26 2016, @07:11PM
Poe's Law or witch-hunt logic?
Posting history confirms you are a witch-hunter.
So sad.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 26 2016, @08:52PM
Oh shit, are they gonna go forgive somebody!?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 27 2016, @12:46PM
>Jesus' most significant act was his self-sacrifice
>Mohammed's most significant act was personally leading a genocidal crusade against heathens
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 26 2016, @03:14PM
Their own rules. They can refuse to provide service due to the owner having blue hair. Their right.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 26 2016, @03:53PM
Here's a private company that refused service and the owner has been castigated, sued and she's in court over it. I wonder what the difference is?
http://www.npr.org/2016/11/15/502111408/washington-state-court-case-religious-liberty-versus-anti-discrimination [npr.org]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 26 2016, @07:06PM
Expecting ideologues to recognize their own hypocrisy is perhaps a bridge too far, but the left does seem to have exceptional mental gymnastics abilities of supporting evil companies when it suits them, and castigating them as the greatest threat on earth otherwise.
Especially as most censorship use to originate from the right, it warms the cockles of my heart that the left has taken up the crusade under even more tenuous justifications (at least the right could be claimed to be detached from reality a bit) and have even less credibility than Pat Robertson.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 27 2016, @04:28AM
"Religious Liberty" is inappropriately named. It should really be called "Protected Discrimination", because that is what it is. They want the right to discriminate against people of their choosing, because religion. If someone else used that same stick to beat them, they would be crying foul. Religion = Hypocrisy. The sooner the human race learns that, the better off they will be.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 26 2016, @03:57PM
Is it? What happens when a Christian bakery refuses to serve a gay couple who want a wedding cake? Oh, that's right, the bakery gets sued because they cannot legally refuse to provide services.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 26 2016, @04:14PM
The gay vegan mooooooooooooooooslims are gonna getcha!
(Score: 4, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 26 2016, @04:17PM
Oh stop your "But Christian's aren't allowed to practice intolerance!!!" drivel. If you want to base your bigotry on the Bible you better start with refusing service to anyone who violates the 10 Commandments, especially the first one - "You shall have no other gods before Me." - which means anyone who is not of your chosen belief system.
If you're claiming your religion commands you to refuse service to gays, which are far down on the list of abominations, you'll also need to refuse service to anyone who has broken a Commandment or committed one of the seven deadly sins. I hope the questionnaire you have at the register is in multiple languages because not every Christian is a white American male.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 26 2016, @04:32PM
When did discriminating against Christians and calling them bigots become the new moral high ground?
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 26 2016, @06:15PM
When did discriminating against Christians and calling them bigots become the new moral high ground?
Standing up against bigotry and intolerance is not "discriminating against Christians". If Christians want to act like bigots they should expect to be called out, just like any other groups or individuals.
If people are going to stand behind their "religion" to justify their bigotry then their religion is going to get dirty in the process. Remember that they are the ones bringing their religion into it ... usually because they are too cowardly to admit their prejudices are their own and instead hide behind any excuse that will bring others to their defense.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday November 26 2016, @09:56PM
Achievement Unlocked: Jumping the Shark
Congrats on taking hypocrisy to a whole new level!
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 26 2016, @11:49PM
I'm not a person of faith, but statements like the above are why I side with Christians when it comes to this kind of thing. Every kind of group in the world has to be respected and cherished. Until it comes to Christians. Christians are always expected to put aside their faith, beliefs, values and morals out of "Respect" for anything and everything. It's total bullshit.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 27 2016, @12:26AM
Until it comes to Christians. Christians are always expected to put aside their faith, beliefs, values and morals out of "Respect" for anything and everything.
That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying any person or group that wants to act like bigots should be called out. That runs the gamut from religious groups, political groups, book clubs, knitting clutches, you name it.
But if they happen to claim "I should be allowed to hate/discriminate/whathaveyou because my religion says these people are less than I am!" then their religion is going to get some of the negative attention if in fact their religion does endorse that type of bigotry.
The "cake" people claim that their religion should allow them to hate gays because it's in the Bible, yet they would still bake cakes for people who have committed murder or theft or adultery or violated any of their sacred Commandments. There's a bunch of abominations inn the Bilbe but one and only one they feel is so beyond anything else in the Bible that that one action should get special treatment. And that is the ultimate hypocrisy.
(Score: 2) by gottabeme on Sunday November 27 2016, @10:15PM
> my religion says these people are less than I am!
This is explicitly not what the Bible says. If you're going to be bigoted toward Christians, you should at least do it accurately. After all, you don't want to convince people to join you based on lies, do you?
> The "cake" people claim that their religion should allow them to hate gays because it's in the Bible, yet they would still bake cakes for people who have committed murder or theft or adultery or violated any of their sacred Commandments.
No, that's a patently false analogy. A proper analogy would be, someone walks into a bakery owned by Christians and asks them to supply a cake for their murder party, or their burglary party, or their orgy. You have failed to distinguish between a) sinful acts and b) openly living, celebrating, and promoting an ongoing, sinful lifestyle.
So far you're 0/2, and your hatred of Christians does not appear to be based on facts or sound reasoning.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 26 2016, @05:17PM
What? Then I might have to give up bacon-wrapped shrimp!
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Saturday November 26 2016, @05:37PM
The primary god that most Americans worship is the ancient Greek god Plutus. The answer to a Christian bakery when gay "marriage" was legalized would have been to simply stop baking wedding cakes.
If your business involves sin, why are you in the business to begin with?
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 26 2016, @05:57PM
Why should good Christians have to give up their tradition of having cake in order to appease the tyranny of those who want to make a mockery of the sacrament and institution designed to promote responsible reproduction and child-rearing?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 26 2016, @06:07PM
Abraham goes waaaaay back in the Bible so I'd imagine his marriage is "traditional", right? Sure, he had three wives and a collection of concubines, but his "institution" was designed to promote responsible reproduction and child-rearing, right? That's some sacrament you're promoting there.
(Score: 2) by gottabeme on Sunday November 27 2016, @10:37PM
You are making the common mistake of conflating biblical history with biblical endorsement. Much of the Bible, especially the OT, merely records history without endorsing it. What did Jesus say about marriage?
(Score: 3, Touché) by LoRdTAW on Saturday November 26 2016, @06:56PM
Shit, they should start by refusing service to those who violate Leviticus 11: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+11&version=KJV [biblegateway.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 28 2016, @12:20AM
Where did Christ say "thou shalt not serve gay people"? Try reading your bible again.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 26 2016, @04:08PM
Their own rules. They can refuse to provide service due to the owner having blue hair. Their right.
Marge Simpson would like a word with you ...
(Score: 2) by looorg on Saturday November 26 2016, @03:19PM
Whatever are they going to do ... if only there was someone else that could sell ads for them. Oh right there are ... Nothing to see here.
I'm not a reader or a follower of Breitbar but I went to visit the site just so see what a news site would look like when it was free of ads, it's so uncommon these days. The adblocker plugin still managed to block out a slew of them. So clearly this stand against hate speech and written violence or whatever one should call it had more or less no effect on Breitbar as they seem to have found another ad-peddler in no time. Clearly the loser here will be AppNexus since Breitbars ad budget will just go to someone else, somehow I don't see some leftwingsite picking up the slack and buying more ads to support them for their stand against "evil".
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 26 2016, @03:34PM
Clearly the loser here will be AppNexus since Breitbars ad budget will just go to someone else, somehow I don't see some leftwingsite picking up the slack and buying more ads to support them for their stand against "evil".
In other words they put their principles before profit. Which is kind of the point.
(Score: 3, Informative) by ilPapa on Saturday November 26 2016, @03:52PM
Someone needs to explain how website advertising works to you.
Websites don't "buy ads".
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Saturday November 26 2016, @04:06PM
I don't go to Breitbart for my news. If/when I go to Breitbart, I'm looking for opinion, and to see what the whackos are saying. Breitbart is less a news organization that Fox News, and Fox is a pretty poor example. But, come to think of it, the US doesn't have many good examples for comparison.
It's a sad state of affairs when Americans confuse a propaganda machine for a news site. But, we do it all the time!
BTW - to the submitters above, discussing censorship. Private organizations do censor the news. In this case, the advertising agency is attempting to censor Breitbart. The attempt will fail, but that doesn't change the fact that an advertiser feels justified in censoring Breitbart. It's "legal" because the advertiser isn't a government agency. But it's still WRONG WRONG WRONG!
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 26 2016, @04:14PM
In this case, the advertising agency is attempting to censor Breitbart.
No, it's not. It's essentially boycotting Breitbart on behalf of its merchants. There are plenty of other ways Breitbart can sell ads, including other ad networks.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday November 26 2016, @10:42PM
Perhaps we don't speak the same brand of English? The advertisers are ATTEMPTING TO censor Breitbart, by means of threatening to cut Breitbart's advertising funds. If these advertisers were in a monopoly position, then they would indeed be able to censor Breitbart with this method. Unfortunately for the advertisers, they are kinda like alligators - all mouth, and no ass. They can't shut Breitbart down, so we have a failed ATTEMPT to censor Breitbart.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 26 2016, @11:13PM
And by not visiting Breitbart's web site am I also failing miserably in my attempt to *censor* Breitbart?
You alt right folks really enjoy exaggeration and conspiracies. It's a joke.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 27 2016, @12:31AM
You'd like to suck on an alt-right - and an alt-left too!
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 26 2016, @04:50PM
> It's a sad state of affairs when Americans confuse a propaganda machine for a news site. But, we do it all the time!
When so many partisans are running around calling legit news sources propaganda it should be no surprise that the gullible start to believe that real propaganda is legit news. All the work that goes into journalistic integrity is invisible to the casual reader. Its just words on the screen to most.
(Score: 2) by Yog-Yogguth on Monday November 28 2016, @02:36AM
Is that so, well the solution is easy then: make all that work (it's a lot!) you're claiming on their behalf visible and verifiable.
When someone like for example the US State Department says something then let these "legitimate" news sources challenge, prod, and poke it publicly and argue for and against the statements made and why or why not it makes sense, and lately how it could possibly makes sense in any way would have been a very good start.
Goes for the "illegitimate" news sources too, although note what I say a bit further below.
If they're doing all the work you think they do then they can show it.
And until the day this starts to happen I will continue to prefer the places where people are allowed to argue, scream, debate, vent, inform, troll, quarrel, and question. Places like SoylentNews (and also just about every "fake" news site labeled as such by the MLM) :)
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 3, Insightful) by n1 on Saturday November 26 2016, @05:32PM
The end result of this is the same as what i said regarding the DailyMail/Lego story the other day.
Companies who want to present certain images of themselves, and want to reach as many customers as possible do not want their brands associated with divisive opinions and overtly politicized content, especially when it's emotionally charged and negative in perspective.
It's not worth having your brand tarnished by being associated with content publishers that present controversial opinions, and it's also not great for business to support another organization that spends it's own resources trying to undermine or cast negative light on your own business practices.
It's been true forever, you can have an audience of millions of people watching your content, but it doesn't mean advertisers will want to associate themselves with it. Porn is obviously a very popular form of content, but the commercial benefits of associating your family friendly product or household brand with that industry is not worth it. Even if you can get more impressions for a fraction of the cost.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by fritsd on Saturday November 26 2016, @07:08PM
About the Daily Mail:
This is what image they want to present of themselves:
Note that, even though the opinion article is written in the Guardian (left-wing newspaper), it describes facts of a publication in the Daily Mail newspaper.
Why didn't the Daily Mail put the jailing of Jo Cox's murderer on its front page? [theguardian.com]
Context: Jo Cox was a British Member of Parliament who was murdered just before the Brexit referendum. The verdict of the judge was that it was an ideologically/politically motivated murder.
Those are rare. So I think it's newsworthy.
That article also has a link to the story of the murder, but before you decide to click on it, be warned that it may make you feel sick.
R.I.P. Jo Cox.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 27 2016, @07:33AM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/21/why-isnt-the-assassination-attempt-on-donald-trump-bigger-news/ [washingtonpost.com]
Did the assassination attempt on Donald Trump by a British man make it into the papers there? Do you feel the same sense of outrage?
(Score: 2) by fritsd on Sunday November 27 2016, @08:37PM
Yes, it did:
2016-06-20 British man tried to take officer’s gun to kill Donald Trump at rally, police say [theguardian.com]
2016-09-13 British man pleads guilty to plan to shoot Trump at Las Vegas rally [theguardian.com]
Do I feel the same sense of outrage? Interesting question. No, I don't. Members of parliament are not guarded, normally. To go to an MP's office, knowing they will be unguarded and unarmed during their weekly "open meeting hour", shooting them and then stabbing them 15 times while shouting white supremacist crap, makes me more outraged than an assassin going to a heavily guarded political rally and attempt murder.
In both cases it's murder or attempted murder, but in the first case it's also cowardice: too chickenshit to attack the government leaders who bear much more responsibility for policies, so attack an easy *opposition party* target instead. That's terrorism.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 26 2016, @06:23PM
Maybe you should consider giving it a try. Then you and yours would stop making idiotic predictions such as "Hillary in a landslide!". Nothing worse that a fucking dipshit who has to virtue signal how superior he is by telling us which websites he doesn't visit. Save it for your useless crowd of Twitter fuckheads.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 26 2016, @08:43PM
To be fair, the predictions are based upon standard polling and do not take into account such things as soliciting help from foreign governments to change vote counts. That hasn't been worked into the current models.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 26 2016, @09:44PM
yeah, damn those cultural marxists for trying to get more illegals over the border to vote clinton in. oh wait...
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday November 26 2016, @10:45PM
You should call a technician of some sort, see if he can help you connect with reality.
(Score: 4, Touché) by Nollij on Sunday November 27 2016, @03:29PM
I'll just leave this here [xkcd.com]
(Score: 2, Interesting) by jmorris on Sunday November 27 2016, @02:46AM
So two days ago The Narrative was "Fake News", carefully left vaguely defined, had been deemed a problem and that 'something' must be done about it. I posted [soylentnews.org] in that thread that it was just a cover for an all out attempt to silence anything that wasn't The Narrative, that a list from an otherwise unknown professor was being passed around in all of the MSM stories pushing this new front in the war on dissent. On that list was breitbart.com, as noted in my post that was modded Troll. And now 'something' is being done about it.
So it wasn't about 'fake news' at all, it was about 'news and opinion that differs from the official Narrative', exactly as I said it was. The line to apologize forms below.
(Score: 2) by Yog-Yogguth on Monday November 28 2016, @02:53AM
And for anyone who hasn't heard yet there are two lists now (so far), the first from the wacky female and the second from the CIA-funded shop which has singled out a hundred allegedly "Russian"-run —LOL— sites and which identifies such sites as "Russian" using an algorithm that marks the US Constitution as Russian propaganda :D
People are using the lists to find real news from more places than they already knew of :)
Other not yet "fake-branded" sites are bitterly complaining about not making it onto the lists for instant fame and increased readership numbers.
How can we get SoylentNews onto future lists? Sure we're different but we know the powers that be have already taken an interest in us (hey are you reading this!? What if we say "pretty please"?) :3
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))