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, Insightful) by ikanreed on Wednesday November 30 2016, @03:14PM
"See? Your desire to maintain basic human rights for all citizens should totally bring you in line with our policy of unregulated corporate economics!"
Jesus, Christ, pseudolibertarians, your bullshit oversimplifications remains bullshit oversimplifications in spite of a good half of you contributing to electing an actual fascist.
Now, I've never been a fan of using "State secrets" as a reason to punish or jail people not sworn to secrecy, and Obama's continuation of that practice is horrible, and I'll continue to support ACLU efforts to fight those decisions. And it's not like we had a candidate who was running on stopping that.
But that's got nothing on
in terms of being "Yep, we'll just shut down whatever we want and fuck our foundational principles along the way".
Fuck you and false your false equivalences. Fuck every single idiot who ignored the incredibly fascist things this guy said and just rolled their eyes and went "He's not a Nazi, what about emails?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @03:47PM
Actually, a good portion of libertarians support the idea of dissolving the very notion corporatehood since it it is essentially the state conferring a right to a group that the individual doesn't have.
Have to admit that's a bit more principled than bearing the evils of Apple so long as you can tax the to fund your utopia.
And I find it odd that that a group as marginal as libertarians (as the left was found of pointing out... until they lost complete control of the government) could be that major of a force for Trump, especially since totals for the libertarian party have never been higher.
Your tears are delicious and your parties will die.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-1SkYN5ZG0 [youtube.com]
(Score: 3, Informative) by ikanreed on Wednesday November 30 2016, @04:00PM
I've got my own objections to the ideals of libertarianism, that are a lot more nuanced than this debate will probably allow for. Suffice it to say, the eye rolling thing is definetly directed at the pseudolibertarians who can't imagine a difference between fundamental human rights that allow us all to live the lives we want to live and free market economics that assume the best possible results for everyone will always be fostered by less government interference in everything.
That is to say, an asshole who opposes people saying mean things about him getting elected is probably going to have zero effect on my conclusion that claims of treating an illness ought to have some kind of objective third party review that keeps people from being defrauded or injured. The debate I'd have with a sincere, radical libertarian would probably require a lot more lengthy discussions about the nature of knowledge and the failings of the efficient market hypothesis, the definition of ethics, the role of government, and countless other basic premises of my beliefs than dismissing a trite shithead who thinks "You think X, YOU MUST ALSO THINK Y, HA!" is valid reasoning(I mean it can be if Y absolutely logically follows from X, but you know).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @04:09PM
Your backtracking has been noted, but the issue remains: given the possibility that a person like Trump can and has been elected, is it better that he have the full force of government as the left imagines it, or limited government?
Or moving to Canada. Whatever. It's not like consistency has been the left's strong suit.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Wednesday November 30 2016, @04:19PM
Considering that some of the most dangerous other policies he's going to be taking on are the dismantling of the useful parts of the government and the reducing the tax burden in exactly the way you'd call "shrinking" I find it a starkly irrelevant question.
Do I wish our military were less gigantic and police forces less militarized? Yes. Do I think the people advocating "shrinking government" have ever even briefly considered doing that? No. So fuck off.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @04:32PM
<sarcasm>Yes, the Libertarian Party has long been associated with wars abroad and full arming the police with personal nuclear devices to combat crime.</sarcasm>
(Score: 2, Informative) by ikanreed on Wednesday November 30 2016, @05:02PM
Alright, fine. We'll have this stupid debate. Even though the point wasn't libertarianism, but the people who think that there's a magic oversimplified answer to the problem of tyranny.
A nice solid majority of people using your magic words of "small government" do. Period. The end. The thing I said? The words I used? Absolutely true.
The slight change you made? Arguable either way. Reason magazine, what I think of of as the face of libertarian ideology, wasn't [reason.com] exactly [reason.com] anti-war [reason.com] in 2002.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @06:02PM
Even though the point wasn't libertarianism
Jesus, Christ, pseudolibertarians
Man, you can't even stay coherent in a single thread.
Three articles in the aftermath of 9/11 is all you got?
One questions whether the left would be as anti-war if there was a democrat elected (which we all know the answer to that after Obama was elected), one questions how bad human rights violations have to get before the idea of military intervention is justified (Was it justified to go to war against Germany even though they never attacked the US directly), and the other postulating justifications for attack, the author even taking part in a debate concerning (yeah, Reason is waving that pro-war flag)
http://reason.com/archives/2003/01/01/should-we-invade-iraq/#comment [reason.com]
Pretty disingenuous to represent that as pro-war given the circumstances.
Here's a few other bits from the era you conveniently ignored
http://reason.com/archives/2002/08/01/baghdad-bait-and-switch [reason.com]
http://reason.com/archives/2002/08/07/us-out-of-saudi-arabia [reason.com]
http://reason.com/archives/2002/08/30/the-other-of-all-battles [reason.com]
http://reason.com/archives/2002/09/11/were-not-winning-the-war-on-te/1 [reason.com]
http://reason.com/archives/2002/10/30/avoid-tenuous-reasoning [reason.com]
http://reason.com/blog/2002/12/30/saddams-war-and-ours [reason.com]
http://reason.com/blog/2003/01/16/its-alright-ma-were-only-bleed [reason.com]
http://reason.com/blog/2003/01/31/if-war-doesnt-work-we-may-have [reason.com]
http://reason.com/blog/2003/02/13/time-for-war-right [reason.com]
http://reason.com/archives/2003/03/17/liberators-or-invaders [reason.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by ikanreed on Wednesday November 30 2016, @06:09PM
You know how I said "arguable either way?" That wasn't a "I refuse to acknowledge anti-war libertarians exist." That was a "You're being highly selective to create a worldview where you're always right." You seem intent on misunderstanding me.
So... I'll let you go. You defeated what imaginary me said. Good job, kid. That man, and his straw is all nicely scattered ripped to shreds.
The argument I never made, laid to rest with surgical precision. The careful word choice to exclude exactly what you want excluded, safely ignored. Your victory is well earned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @06:37PM
Uh-huh. More backpedaling.
Debating an issue isn't exactly condoning, and is pretty far removed from "arguable either way" considering only ONE of the articles you cite actually made the case for war with Iraq specifically (and was in fact part of a debate that also argued against going to war).
Here's selections from the Libertarian platform in 2002 in case you were unclear:
American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world and the defense -- against attack from abroad -- of the lives, liberty, and property of the American people on American soil. Provision of such defense must respect the individual rights of people everywhere.
The principle of non-intervention should guide relationships between governments. The United States government should return to the historic libertarian tradition of avoiding entangling alliances, abstaining totally from foreign quarrels and imperialist adventures, and recognizing the right to unrestricted trade, travel, and immigration.
We recognize that foreign governments might violate the rights of Americans traveling, living, or owning property abroad, just as those governments violate the rights of their own citizens. We condemn all such violations, whether the victims are U.S. citizens or not.
Any effort, however, to extend the protection of the United States government to U.S. citizens when they or their property fall within the jurisdiction of a foreign government involves potential military intervention. We therefore call upon the United States government to adhere rigidly to the principle that all U.S. citizens travel, live, and own property abroad at their own risk. In particular, we oppose -- as unjust tax-supported subsidy -- any protection of the foreign investments of U.S. citizens or businesses.
We support withdrawal of the United States government from, and an end to its financial support for, the United Nations. Specifically, we oppose any U.S. policy designating the United Nations as policeman of the world, committing U.S. troops to wars at the discretion of the U.N., or placing U.S. troops under U.N. command. We oppose U.S. government participation in any world or international government. We oppose any treaty under which individual rights would be violated.
We call for the reform of the Presidential War Powers Act to end the President's power to initiate military action, and for the abrogation of all Presidential declarations of "states of emergency." There must be no further secret commitments and unilateral acts of military intervention by the Executive Branch.
We favor a Constitutional amendment limiting the presidential role as Commander-in-Chief to its original meaning, namely that of the head of the armed forces in wartime. The Commander-in-Chief role, correctly understood, confers no additional authority on the President.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by ikanreed on Wednesday November 30 2016, @06:52PM
No, you won. You utterly got me on all those things I specifically set out not to say, and intentionally chose words to indicate I was not saying.
Yep. You're not a fuckwad trying to "win" a dispute that didn't really exist except in your mind. I'm totally "backpeddling" by pointing out what I actually said and meant.
Congratulations hero. You won! Because that's clearly what matters here! Beating someone in an argument, not having a meaningful point to make.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 01 2016, @10:28AM
He's almost right about the spelling of "back-pedaling"!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 01 2016, @10:51AM
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/backpedaling [thefreedictionary.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @03:52PM
Which is the political affiliation talking about banning, "Fake news" again?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by ikanreed on Wednesday November 30 2016, @04:07PM
None, they're certainly saying that unchecked sharing of fake news is destroying our democracy, and it is. If people can't tell that an abc.com.co story about a protestor being paid is literally fake, and there's no indication on the primary news feed that many people use that that's happening, it's a real problem.
That being a real problem doesn't mean anyone in power for the party you've chosen to hate is saying it should be banned from existing. (Heaven help us if we point out that sites like breitbart also make up news stories, because then we're extra evil.)
Meanwhile this other party nominated then elected someone who seems to have an actual stated antipathy towards free press. Fuck your false equivalences a second time.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday November 30 2016, @08:59PM
That's why credibility and reputation and comportment are so important, because that divides "fake" news from "real" news in terms of how much sway you have with the public. And, honestly, the "real" news outlets completely shredded any of those three qualities they still clung to in the course of this election. They stopped substantiating their real claim to those three qualities a long time ago when they stopped doing real journalism because it's hard and expensive and nowhere near as sexy as spouting any kind of drivel and having the proles accept it as fact, based on the real journalism they used to do.
The way I see it, what is really destroying our democracy is the moral and intellectual torpor, the sheer laziness, of a society that has enshrined worthless, non-productive, non-value producing bankers, politicians, actors, and sports icons as its highest avatars of achievement. Nobody can be bothered to learn to spell, write, calculate, or reason any more because it has been established that you can just phone it in and win a trophy telling you how special you are.
"Free" is not what I read, but "biased." "Biased" press is the sticking point. And biased they surely are. The New York Times, the standard of American journalism, issued a mea culpa after the election saying they blew it. With that and similar admissions, how can anyone dispute the bald facts that the American media are of a piece, and biased to the core?
If the media ever were to want to be relevant again (frankly, I think that ship has sailed), they'd have to do something really, really, really hard that would involve a lot, a shit ton, a mega ton, of really, really, really hard work and do real investigative journalism again instead of plucking plums off the AP Wire, changing a couple words, and passing it off as their own.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by edIII on Wednesday November 30 2016, @10:14PM
How do you get real investigate journalism, by your own admission being expensive, to be profitable, or at least breaking even from the investments?
That's the hard part. As worthwhile as investigate journalism *is* in our post-truth world, it currently has no value with the public, and they aren't willing to pay for it. Of which I suspect in many cases is because they can't afford it. When many are sick, tired, burned out, underpaid, overworked, etc. it's hard to get them to do anything, even when it clearly benefits them. I've been doing community outreach for a few years now and that is exactly what I get a lot from people I'm attempting to organize. "I'd love to help, but I have 3 jobs and two kids", and then I'm still arranging for them to be helped, because they very much need it. Extra food donated from local businesses, and stuff like that. I meet very few people in a strong enough position to help others and are also willing to work to make things better for everyone, or at least a few others in their community.
Do I wish people were willing and able to pay $15-$30 a month for investigative journalism like they do Netflix? Hell yes, but I don't know how to get there. Other than general strikes for living wages, of course. Then also factor in skyrocketing costs of living. Don't even dream of doing this in San Fransisco since it costs over 100% of average income to afford rent, with most people I see living with roommates or letting out rooms to make up the difference. Over 40% increase in the last 5 years cuts the legs off large portions of the community otherwise willing to engage with you.
We need a revolution at so many different levels in this country, and investigate journalism is one of them. Of which I admittedly have no idea how to start. I lament it as well.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday December 01 2016, @11:49AM
Bless you for doing it, ed. I burned my early- to middle 30's doing that.
It used to be that "doing your homework" was part of that job. Hell, "doing your homework" used to be part of many jobs. But an illness began in the top echelons of the society where people believed it was their right to have their cake and eat it, too. Bankers could get paid top dollar to manage vast sums of money, but pay no price when they fucked up or broke the law. CEOs could get paid top dollar for plunging their companies into ruin and throwing all the good people working hard in them out onto the streets. And so on and so on until the average Joe on the street wants to have store shelves full of cheap widgets made with slave labor in China, but still wants high-paying jobs in America making shelves full of widgets. But why shouldn't they have that pittance when they don't see anyone on Wall Street or in DC being held accountable? Sure, it means that the whole society from top-to-bottom stops working entirely, but why should they sacrifice when Wall Street and DC never have, and in fact have previously gorged themselves every time patriotic Americans gave the "full measure of devotion" for the country?
When your family has a monthly budget of, say, $20 for entertainment, do you spend it for the services of people employed by the people who are lying to you all the time, manipulating you all the time, or do you spend it on a little escapism via Netflix or basic cable?
It is hard. It is also ineluctable. We must undertake it.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @11:36PM
> The New York Times, the standard of American journalism, issued a mea culpa after the election saying they blew it.
That's something you'll never see from a site like breitbart, or even fox. Fox doesn't even have an ombudsman.
The fact that they are publicly willing to own their mistakes is why they deserve trust. Perfection is impossible, a level-headed approach to imperfection is necessary both for publishers and readers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 01 2016, @12:07AM
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/in-the-wake-of-corey-lewandowski-arrest-breitbart-editor-admits-he-was-wrong/ [cbsnews.com]
Oh, and
https://christopherfountain.wordpress.com/2013/04/26/three-years-late-nyt-admits-andrew-breitbart-was-right/ [wordpress.com]
I suppose after you've exhausted every other remote possibility, it's okay to admit even Breitbart can be correct once in a while. Three years later.
Do you enjoy smelling your own farts?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 01 2016, @01:09AM
A tweet is not an editorial holding themselves to account on breitbart.com
Furthermore, breitbart's throwing of their own reporter under the trump bus wasn't an article either, it was a reality-tv quality HR fuckup.
Nor is some random hyperpartisan blogger's skewed characterization of a NYT article an accurate description of reality.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 01 2016, @04:03AM
Way to move the goalpost, you dolt. The statement was "The fact that they are publicly willing to own their mistakes", which I do believe a tweet qualifies.
Throwing the reporter under the bus, or holding them to account when evidence clearly contradicted what they were reporting? Not only that, but stand-by the decision even when loosing one of their most recognizable contributors. And if they would have stood by the reporter, it would have just been proof of bias. Essentially, they can never hit those vaunted hills of "trust" since they aren't shoveling your brand of it. Gotcha.
The "hyperpartisan blogger" quotes the NYT article in full with just an opening paragraph to set context. I note the New York Times omitting completely Breitbart accusation.
But here's another "hyperpartisan blogger" reaching the same conclusion
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/05/how-did-progressive-journalists-get-pigford-so-wrong/275593/ [theatlantic.com]
but with a nice dose of smear so fart sniffers, such as yourself, can maintain their smug.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 01 2016, @02:59AM
Subscribe to your local newspaper, if you still have one. We are fairly fortunate, our long standing paper is now owned by Buffet and he appears to mostly leave them alone. While they don't have the news staff that they used to, they still have reporters that go dig for stories and expose real problems.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday November 30 2016, @10:22PM
None, they're certainly saying that unchecked sharing of fake news is destroying our democracy, and it is.
We don't even have a democracy to begin with. We have a system that suppresses third parties and makes many people believe they have to vote for the 'lesser evil'. Where is the democracy?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @11:30PM
::rolleyes::
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 01 2016, @08:15AM
Chip on your shoulder much? The NDP were the official opposition party from 2011 until last year's elections.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday November 30 2016, @07:08PM
"He's not a Nazi, what about emails?"
And to add insult to injury he's floating David Petraeus for Secretary of State (you know, Clinton's old gig). This is a guy who was actually convicted for purposefully leaking classified information!
The hypocrisy is truly amazing!
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Wednesday November 30 2016, @08:46PM
Well, no. That's what he was accused of. His plea deal was the charge they tried to give to Clinton. If I'm remembering how that played out correctly.
Don't bang your biographer and give her classified documents, people. He's far and away the least evil of Trump's proposed cabinet, though.
(Score: 4, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday November 30 2016, @08:58PM
He was convicted of mishandling classified information. [washingtonpost.com]
It's still a conviction even if you plead down to a lesser charge.
"As part of the agreement, Petraeus admitted that he improperly removed and retained highly sensitive information in eight personal notebooks that he gave to Broadwell."
I think my statement is accurate...
He's far and away the least evil of Trump's proposed cabinet, though. Agreed.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Wednesday November 30 2016, @09:21PM
I concede that I was being excessively pedantic and the way you phrased it was fine.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday November 30 2016, @09:01PM
Well, Obama established the precedent that the Secretary of State can purposefully leak classified information without any repercussion, so why wouldn't Petraeus be eligible for the job?
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday November 30 2016, @09:17PM
I don't even know what you are alluding to. Perhaps a citation?
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday November 30 2016, @10:29PM
Will Politico work for you? Obama knew about Hillary's illegal email server and did nothing [politico.com]. He clearly knew it was a no-no because he used a pseudonym, not his real name, as he would have if he thought it was OK for her to do that.
Or here's one from the New York Times saying the same thing [nytimes.com].
Obama knew Hillary was breaking the law and allowed it. Hillary didn't set up an email server by accident; she did it deliberately. She did not, still has not, and now probably never will go to jail for that deliberate, conscious act. Therefore, the precedent has been set that the Secretary of State of the United States can leak, or allow to be known, top secrets of the United States, without repercussion.
So, why would having done the same thing disqualify Petraeus for Sect. of State now? It's merely his misfortune that he did it before he had the juice to be considered above the law, too.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday November 30 2016, @11:38PM
Setting up an email server isn't illegal.
Handing over classified information to a reporter who then publishes a book about it, is.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday December 01 2016, @11:19AM
Putting classified information on an unsecured system is. Lesser people, peons, have been prosecuted for doing that. Why is she excused from obeying the laws that others have done jail time for breaking? They were "extremely careless," too, but were not given a pass.
Of course, if you do not accept the premise that the law ought to apply equally to everyone, then that inconsistency will not be apparent to you, or it will not matter.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by J053 on Thursday December 01 2016, @12:07AM
(Score: 1) by tftp on Thursday December 01 2016, @04:14AM
I still have never seen any verified accusation that any of Hillary Clinton's emails, that were stored on her "private" server, were ever leaked or revealed to anyone not authorized to see them.
Let's then all together ask the intelligence services of all leading countries to confess that they have been there and they have taken all the messages and left no traces. They should have reported all this to the public years ago! Isn't it in their charter?
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday December 01 2016, @11:14AM
That's because you're only considering the relative position of those jobs in the org chart. Hillary's power derived from something more than that. Obama beat her in the primaries, but only just. She had the DNC locked up behind her, and most of the media then. All the big donors maxed out their contributions to her then. If you'll recall, when Obama asked her to become Sect. of State it took the Clintons months and months to decide, with lots of negotiation with Obama's camp. Obama probably thought he was uniting a divided party behind him after a rancorous primary process. The Clintons were clearly figuring out how to position her for another run for the Whitehouse, later.
That's why Hillary had the juice to be above the law, and Petraeus didn't. Be that as it may, the precedent that the Sect. of State can ignore the law has been set. Now it doesn't matter whose butt is in the chair. The Secretary is immune from prosecution.
Washington DC delenda est.