SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the you-can-never-have-too-many-offsite-backups-eh dept.
The Internet Archive plans to create a backup of its data in Canada in response to the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States:
The Internet Archive, a nonprofit that saves copies of old web pages, is creating a backup of its database in Canada, in response to the election of Donald Trump. "On November 9th in America, we woke up to a new administration promising radical change," the organization wrote in a blogpost explaining the move. "It was a firm reminder that institutions like ours, built for the long-term, need to design for change."
[...] The move will cost millions, according to the Internet Archive, which is soliciting donations. In their post, the Internet Archive justified its decision to backup its data in Canada, claiming that Trump could threaten an open internet. "For us, it means keeping our cultural materials safe, private and perpetually accessible. It means preparing for a Web that may face greater restrictions."
(Score: 5, Informative) by takyon on Wednesday November 30 2016, @03:10PM
The "left" tried to elect Bernie Sanders. Hillary Clinton was picked instead, for various reasons.
The "left" control nothing. There will be no limited government, not during the Don's reign, and not after a Democrat takes office.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @03:29PM
Oh boy here we go...
I appreciate in trying to draw strict definitions, especially when distinguishing from specifics at an individual level, but when speaking to generalities, I have to imagine you, much like me, didn't have a candidate that perfectly reflected your views, and had to make the best choice out of what was available (and even Original Owner would chastise you that Bernie was far from left you right-wing nutjob, so spare me the finer granulations of how far left is left enough. You sound like whiny AnCaps bitching that only they are true libertarians).
And an overwhelming majority of you voted Hilary. Not Stein, not Johnson, but Hilary.
And even stating that you supported Saunders means limited government wasn't at the forefront of your decision making process, and maybe, just maybe, since El Presidente is elected, you might consider the broad reach of government can be a bitch when your guy losses.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @03:51PM
I think you mean El Supremo.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by kurenai.tsubasa on Wednesday November 30 2016, @03:54PM
Limited government was never on the menu.
I voted for the lizard person because I didn't want to put up with being on double secret probation for 4 years while women whine and cry about Roe v. Wade, rape, sexual harassment, glass ceilings, asshole 13 year olds playing Cock of Duty being representative of all assigned males who play video games, you name it.
I already voted for Johnson in 2012. I contributed to Johnson's campaign again this year for the hell of it. And we got so close to the magical 15% polling number set by the corprotocracy. It was over, however, when Johnson wasn't invited to the debates.
Plus, really, let's be completely honest with ourselves. He would have been roflstomped by Trump and bamboozled by Clinton even if he had gotten into the debates. He's not good at thinking on his feet, and he's certainly not good at demagoguery. He wouldn't have gone negative on Clinton (also Sanders' mistake), and he would have looked weak next to Trump with military non-intervention and free trade positions.
Turns out we got the guy who unlocked the “strong man top score” achievement. And women wanted him too! Turns out women love strongmen, especially when it gives them license to be complete assholes for the next 4 years!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @04:15PM
True, Johnson wasn't the strongest candidate.
However, to state that ideologically some parties aren't in support of limited government is completely facile on its face.
And the expansion of government from both of the major parties has come home to roost in the most improbable way possible.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday November 30 2016, @06:57PM
1: Which one is the lizard person?
2: You are more worried about women complaining than actual anti-LGBT policies that will directly affect you?
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Wednesday November 30 2016, @07:55PM
12 Million Americans Believe Lizard People Run Our Country [theatlantic.com]
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday November 30 2016, @07:58PM
Well fuck, let's get on this train!
Riley Martin 2020!
(Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Wednesday November 30 2016, @11:35PM
1. Clinton is the lizard person. I'm hoping that's just metaphor, but you never know!
2. Yes. Both Clinton and Trump were that horrendously bad (along with Stein and Johnson being exercises in futility) that the choice really did come down to that. Well, more I should say that the choice came down to my usual exercise in futility by throwing the lever for the L candidate vs. maybe insignificantly nudging the result towards unlocking the “female head of state” achievement. Clinton also carried a distinct risk of all-out nuclear war, but on the other hand I might have been able to buy cannabis legally in my own state for a month or two before the bombs fell.
I don't think we're going to see too much in the way of anti-LGBT policies. I guess we'll see once the dust settles. If anything, gay marriage will devolve to states rights (which I guess is better than the federal government being in the marriage business).
One specific example is that has the interesting effect of kicking the conflict between my state constitution's DOMA provisions vs. an eyebrow-raising decision by the Supreme Court down the road. I'm still waiting to see if conservatives are appeased this year or whether “merry Christmas” is something you yell at people in anger again this year. A conflict like that could turn the holiday greeting from an expression of hatred and rage to actual blows.
Trump's already said he's not in favor of bathroom laws also. I don't think LGBT stuff was much of a concern with Trump vs. Clinton.
Cannabis was probably about the only actual policy factor I could find that mattered to me. Nobody knows what Trump thinks, but Clinton would have at least continued Obama's policies to let the states “experiment” (experiment must be a modern way of saying federalism).
Now, what really has me worried is a Republican congress. I'm also sort of worried with Trump that in addition to being “on punishment,” women might decide to fuck with my medical care once more. But if Trump and the Rs repeal Obamneycare and open up mail order from overseas pharmacies again, women can do whatever the fuck they want because I won't be at the mercy of some bullshit system any more. If we keep Obamneycare, I will probably will get fucked with again in retaliation when Roe v. Wade is overturned.
(Score: 3, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday November 30 2016, @11:48PM
The vice-president-elect thinks you can be "fixed" with drugs. No problem there, I'm sure.
(Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Thursday December 01 2016, @04:39AM
Yeah granted that's disconcerting, but the worst he did in Indiana is make it so that wedding cake bakers can refuse certain people's money.
(Why they would do so is beyond me, like literally in the sense I don't get their connection to this Reichsführer Jesus in the sky. While I haven't found Mr. Right yet, so maybe I speak from naïveté, I can't imagine finding somebody to bake a wedding cake could possibly be anywhere near as difficult as finding a doctor. And there are plenty of rituals that don't involve cake that would be acceptable. Maybe the cake is a lie!)
I can think he's a vile person (ignorance can be easily cured, but people like him are not ignorant) without being too worried what he'd even be able to get away with. I'm expecting a lot of meh for the next four years. Discrimination laws just create angst to nod at AC.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 01 2016, @03:33AM
Trump’s Justice Department could undermine hate crime protections for LGBT people and withdraw Obama’s directive to schools not to discriminate against transgender students. Trump could also rescind Obama’s executive order prohibiting federal contractors from discriminating against LGBT employees, or support legislation that allows employment discrimination.
https://theintercept.com/2016/11/28/trump-may-not-be-anti-gay-but-much-of-his-senior-staff-is/ [theintercept.com]
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Thursday December 01 2016, @05:35AM
The "left" lives in a perpetual no-true-scotsman fallacy while curtailing rights of majority in the name of minorities when in power.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 01 2016, @06:25AM
With President Trump, the White race may finally get a fair shake.