SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A month ago, the Department of Justice served a warrant (PDF) to Dreamhost regarding one of its clients. This is routine for law enforcement to make such requests, the website hosting service said in a blog post -- except the page in question, disruptj20.org, had helped organize protests of Trump's inauguration. And the DOJ is demanding personal info and 1.3 million IP addresses of visitors to the site.
[...] After questioning the warrant's extreme volume of info requested, the DOJ fired back with a motion (PDF) asking the DC Superior Court to compel the host to comply. Dreamhost's counsel filed legal arguments in opposition (PDF), and will attend a court hearing about the matter in Washington, DC on August 18th.
It's not the first time authorities have tried to pry information from internet companies on users that attended anti-Trump protests.
Source: Engadget
Additional Coverage at The Guardian and DreamHost
Related: Facebook Appeal
(Score: 4, Informative) by FakeBeldin on Tuesday August 15 2017, @10:53AM (12 children)
Though you're obviously trolling, I'll bite. For the benefit of others.
The difference?
- The difference in text is that one is in scare quotes and the other one isn't
- The difference in links is that one goes to a fake account purporting to belong to the leader of a political party slightly left of center (5:35ish), while
the other link goes to a random twitterer.
- The difference between the contents of the tweets is that one is retweeting 2 messages and purporting to support them, while the other is
retweeting a url and after listing its contents.
You're aware that by your definition of terrorism, typical civil disobedience (Rosa Parks, anyone) is terrorism, right?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @11:12AM
Exactly who was Rosa Parks being violent toward or intimidating?
He gave the textbook definition of terrorism, and Antifa absolutely fits the definition of a terrorist organization.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @11:14AM (10 children)
Political right and left are economic classifications, national socialists always subscribed to left wing economic principles.
Yes, it's a parody account but Labour have a well documented problem with anti-Semitism. [spectator.co.uk]
The second link is someone dissecting the policies of the US Nazi party and providing historical context. This is not being taught correctly in our educational establishments, history tells us there is nothing superior about collectivism or socialism in any form. Western liberalism and individualism dominated the 20th Century for a reason.
It's not my definition of terrorism, it's the dictionary definition. Refusing to give up a seat on a bus is not use of force or intimidation, it's plain civil disobedience. Positive social change is rarely associated with violence or intimidation.
(Score: 3, Touché) by lgsoynews on Tuesday August 15 2017, @01:12PM (6 children)
And european feodalism dominated for over 500 years. Tribalism and barbarism lasted for thousands, if not tens of thousands years... Obviously, they did something right!
Or not.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @06:39PM (5 children)
These systems were the best western civilisation could muster at the time. Just as democratic liberalism (a hybrid of both classic and social) is the best we can do now.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @07:17PM (4 children)
that's the point of the left you idiot, that's not the best we can do!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @08:04PM (3 children)
Prove it - show me a single socialist country where the poor have a better standard of living.
(Score: 2) by UncleSlacky on Tuesday August 15 2017, @08:16PM (1 child)
There are no socialist countries. There are social democracies (e.g. the Scandinavian ones) where the poor are certainly better off than in the US, but these are still essentially capitalist economies with a few sops to leftish ideas.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @08:44PM
Partially correct answer, social liberals understand there's no wealth to redistribute without the mechanisms of wealth creation. This is what I was alluding to with my earlier comment. There are socialist countries, Cuba, North Korea and Venezuela for a start. Spare us the "not real socialism" shtick because the same thing happens every time socialism is tried.
(Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday August 15 2017, @11:56PM
You could compare Cuba and Haiti.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Tuesday August 15 2017, @03:09PM (2 children)
Actually, it's more complicated than that. There is economic right and economic left. There is also social right and social left.
Economic right starts with "You earned every penny you have, so you should be able to keep it." Economic left starts with "When people are so poor they can't keep themselves alive, we should give them money/stuff to fix that problem." The reason they're diametrically opposed is that the economic left needs to get the stuff they give to poor people from somebody who already has it, which violates the principle of the economic right.
Social right starts with "Some people are better than others, and should have more privileges in society." Social left starts with "Some people through no fault of their own are at a disadvantage, and we should change things so that they no longer are." These are obviously diametrically opposed, because they have opposite answers to the question of why some people are poor, more likely to be convicted of a crime, and so forth: the social right thinks it's because they're stupid and lazy and make poor decisions, the social left thinks it's because there are people and institutions trying to keep them on the bottom rung.
The modern Republican Party is very obviously economic right and tends towards social right. The modern Democratic Party is very obviously social left and is really conflicted between economic left and economic neutral. Fascism is basically social right mixed with economic left, noticeably making the "some people are better than others" be defined as groups of people rather than individuals. Libertarians tend towards economic right (although unlike fascists evaluating the "some people" on an individual basis) and social neutral. Socialists are all about economic left but also secondarily social left.
The so-called "national socialists" are fascists, not socialists. Indeed, they consistently portray themselves as fighting against socialism.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @04:29PM
That's one interpretation. Another interpretation:
Social right starts with "Some people work hard to overcome their disadvantages, and they should reap the rewards for their work." Social left starts with "Some people see their disadvantages as a reason to not work hard, and the rest of us should do their work instead."
Neither interpretation is entirely correct or incorrect, of course, but multiple perspectives are necessary to aid in a true, non-echo-chamber understanding. (If a person finds one of these interpretations appealing but the other repulsive, that may be a symptom of echo chamber thinking.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @06:31PM
Really? I mean sure, murdering someone is one way to end their disadvantage. [theguardian.com]
Fascism is socialism [econlib.org] and socialism is a murderous evil.