Submitted via IRC for Runaway1956
Facebook admitted Sunday that it had blocked links to the Wikileaks trove of emails hacked from the Democratic National Committee.
In a Twitter post late Saturday, WikiLeaks accused the social media giant of "censorship" and gave its followers an online workaround, saying "try using https://archive.is."
The WikiLeaks allegation followed a firestorm of controversy that erupted earlier this year when former Facebook workers admitted routinely suppressing conservative news.
Source: https://nypost.com/2016/07/24/facebook-admits-to-blocking-wikileaks-links-in-dnc-email-hack/
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Facebook Admits to Blocking Wikileaks Links in DNC Email Hack
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 88 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 26 2016, @09:12PM
Cue the apologists who claim that Facebook is a private sector corporation and can censor anything at all, which is entirely true. Except the problem is that social media has become so essential to our society that Facebook censorship can effectively make unpersons, and people who aren't on Facebook might as well not exist at all. That's why privatization of social media is bad, and all social media corporations must be nationalized to make the First Amendment apply to them as government agencies. It's time for USA Facebook of all residents, with mandatory enrollment just like Selective Service and Social Security, and with mandatory participation just like the Internal Revenue Service.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Tuesday July 26 2016, @09:14PM
Another good reason to not use facepalm.
Glad I left there.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 26 2016, @09:17PM
Something is horribly wrong with you if you joined FB in the first place!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by MostCynical on Tuesday July 26 2016, @09:23PM
Teenagers?
University and college students?
Travellers keeping "in touch" with friends at home?
People with active social lives and a need to share?
Yup, something "horribly wrong" with all of them.
Naïvity, innocence, and trust are not *bad*, they are just unfortunate, when you end up getting done-over.
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 26 2016, @09:48PM
Yup, something "horribly wrong" with all of them.
There is indeed something horribly wrong if you choose to sacrifice your privacy to a company like Facebook [stallman.org] for reasons like that. There is no "need to share".
Even the term "social media" is vomit-inducing. I'm not sure how people can use it seriously without gagging.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday July 27 2016, @12:20AM
In the early days, Facebook wasn't as bad as it is today. Like many other people, I created an account, just to see WTF it was all about. Likewise, I created a MySpace account, when it was new. I watched MySpace evolve from something that was merely objectionable, into an abortion. Likewise, we've watched Facebook evolve.
All of you superior creatures who know how bad Facebook is - how did you discover that fact? Apparently, you've never clicked on a Facebook page, you have simply never visited the site - yet you know how horrible it is? Oh, I see, you've been following the evaluations and comments of braver souls who have explored the cesspool.
I guess it's time for a newsflash, right? Virtually every internet business is in it for the money. Almost every page you visit online is hoping to make a few cents from you, or more. Even Soylentnews hopes that you will subscribe, thereby helping to keep Soylent online. Facebook is greedy, and they have crap ethics. They sell every bit of data they can scrape off of you. We know this because - well, because you never created an account there, right?
Let me repeat - I have a Facebook account. And, I actually find it somewhat useful, when I need to track some lackwit who doesn't know any better than to post all his/her shit to Facebook. The cops have admitted as much. I recall a photo posted on Facebook, of some moron showing off a big double fistful of cash, immediately after a robbery. The cops also saw that photo. The fool was picked up later that day.
The more discerning people among us can admit that Facebook has some few redeeming values. At the same time, we can avoid feeding the Facebook Moneymaking Machine. Do you think that Facebook knows all of my health problems/condition? Fek no, they don't.
When it was new, I was less careful about permissions and crap. I even clicked on a couple of their apps, or whatever they are called. As I learned more about Facebook, I used the settings to protect my privacy better, and I dumped those stupid apps. Was the damage already done? Probably, but then again, I fed them plenty of false information.
I see little problem with using Facebook, if you are actually using Facebook. Unfortunately, most people are used BY Facebook.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 27 2016, @01:02AM
In the early days, Facebook wasn't as bad as it is today.
The mere concept of "social media" is revolting, and it was obvious what it would turn into from the beginning. Come on now. It's only the billionth time a company has abused its users, so it should be obvious by now that posting your information everywhere is a bad idea.
All of you superior creatures who know how bad Facebook is - how did you discover that fact?
Gee, I don't know. Maybe reading the countless news articles about how Facebook abuses its useds, as well as having a brain. If you give away your private information to a "social media" company, it isn't hard to predict that they'll sell it, spread it around, give it to the government, and possibly do malicious and/or harmful things with it. Even absent the news articles, predicting that Facebook would abuse its users in increasingly horrible ways was too easy.
I guess it's time for a newsflash, right? Virtually every internet business is in it for the money.
Not just Internet businesses. And this is another reason it was so easy to predict what Facebook's actions would be, so there was no need for "braver souls" to be used by Facebook first.
Let me repeat - I have a Facebook account. And, I actually find it somewhat useful, when I need to track some lackwit who doesn't know any better than to post all his/her shit to Facebook.
There is no "need" here. And someone like that isn't worth reading about. I don't care if some dumb criminal is occasionally caught because they bragged about their exploits on fecal media.
Unfortunately, most people are used BY Facebook.
The big users of Facebook are the advertisers, giant companies, and the government, all of whom are more than happy to siphon up data from the suckers who falsely believe themselves to be the users of Facebook.
The best thing would be for Facebook and all similar to companies to vanish off the face of the Earth, but that doesn't look like it will happen. There's just too many suckers that can be easily scammed.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday July 27 2016, @01:17AM
Well, geez, you're a freaking omnipotent genius. You knew what Facebook would be way back in 1950, I suppose. You didn't even have to hear the name to know what it would become. You're amazing.
"And someone like that isn't worth reading about."
It isn't "reading about". If you are unable to imagine a situation in which you want to know where someone is, or what he/she is doing, or even whether they are still alive, then I suppose that you don't have much of a life.
Facebook is a fact of life. You can't just wish that it would go away. It's here, it's real, and the less intelligent people use it carelessly. Their carelessness enables people to track them. Sometimes, I can put that to use. You can't? Then, maybe you lack imagination.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 27 2016, @02:45AM
Well, geez, you're a freaking omnipotent genius.
Wrong. It doesn't take a genius to realize the obvious. How many times have companies sold user information and just generally abused their users? It was not hard to predict Facebook would do these things with the information people gave it. Is your standard of "genius" really so low?
Facebook is a fact of life.
It's a fact of life only in the sense that it exists and a lot of people use it. But many bad things exist, so this is merely another addition to that list.
You can't? Then, maybe you lack imagination.
It's not that I "can't", but that I refuse on principle to use Facebook and its ilk in any way.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday July 27 2016, @01:25AM
You realize this site, and /. before it, are arguably social media, yes?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 27 2016, @02:40AM
Sure, if you use an incredibly broad and useless definition of "social media". But then I would just say that that's not the type of "social media" being discussed.
(Score: 5, Funny) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday July 27 2016, @03:32AM
With some people it's more like anti-social media...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 27 2016, @06:31AM
Yet with others is more like social anti-media.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday July 27 2016, @10:57AM
Ponder it a moment. There are way better news sites. What keeps everyone coming around are the discussions, debates, and outright arguments. So we're definitely social media.
Historically, I think social media was done right just before D2 went in over at our great green grandparent. Everything since then has been people trying and failing to improve on that. Except for us. We rock my stripey socks.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Thexalon on Wednesday July 27 2016, @02:25PM
Arguments? Wrong room, this is abuse! (stupid git)
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 27 2016, @10:42PM
So we're definitely social media.
So "social media" is basically any website that allows users to post comments and have discussions. Okay, well, even if you define it that way, this site is still significantly different from Facebook and its ilk. No real name policy, no massive surveillance, no selling of private information, no real expectation of posting sensitive information, etc. Pretty much all of the abuses in the link above. If this site did even a small fraction of the evil things Facebook does, it's almost certain that a grand majority of people here would leave. So while this website may qualify as "social media" under some extremely broad definitions of the term, clearly Facebook is a different kind of "social media".
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday July 27 2016, @10:59PM
Indeed, we do it right. Them? Pounding the pooch.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday July 27 2016, @03:22AM
All of you superior creatures who know how bad Facebook is - how did you discover that fact? Apparently, you've never clicked on a Facebook page, you have simply never visited the site - yet you know how horrible it is? Oh, I see, you've been following the evaluations and comments of braver souls who have explored the cesspool.
I guess it is a moderately higher form of wisdom to learn from the experience of others. For me, it was just another Twitter. I didn't see a good reason to use it and even early on, I could see the problems that would develop (such as having a massive circle of "friends" that need maintenance, too much of my information online, silly drama (just look at how much bellyaching and mod bombing there is with a slashdot-style rating system), and no pressing use case (still doesn't exist now either).
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday July 27 2016, @02:19PM
"and even early on,"
I will readily grant that things were pretty obvious "early on". Unlike the posts made by AC, you apparently took a wait-and-see stance, until things started going to crap. Salutes for that.
Personally, I was an early signer-upper, and I used it very little. Early signs that it was turning to crap irritated and scared me, but I was still hoping that Facebook might have enough redeeming values to be worthwhile.
Unfortunately, they blew away all of their redeeming values long before they became a publicly traded company. As mentioned earlier, I post almost nothing to Facebook, I read very little. The main purpose for keeping the account, is to check up on people who make it difficult to check up on them. They won't answer a phone call, but they'll post on Facebook? Go figure . . . .
(Score: 3, Informative) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Tuesday July 26 2016, @11:15PM
Teenagers?
University and college students?
Travellers keeping "in touch" with friends at home?
People with active social lives and a need to share?
Email is an easy option for all of the above.
Yup, something "horribly wrong" with all of them.
If they don't stay clear of the likes of facebook.
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by MostCynical on Tuesday July 26 2016, @11:31PM
Alas, the problems with "social media" aren't perceived by *most* people.
"Normal" society (the parts that can't, or choose not to, understand) sees anyone espousing the problems as "loony".
Conspiracy theorists, people with mental health concerns, IT and tech "nerds" are all lumped together by "mainstream" society, and dismissed, even when it has been shown over and over that "they" *are* out to get us, you and your data are *not* safe online (or anywhere with CCTV, or wifi coverage, or electronic ticketing, or rfid readers, or electronic tollway tags, or ....)
You can't educate the willfully ignorant.
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 27 2016, @01:46AM
Conspiracy theorists, people with mental health concerns, IT and tech "nerds" are all lumped together by "mainstream" society, and dismissed
IT has gone mainstream normal and oldschool "autistic" tech nerds are not welcome in IT either.
https://ddg.gg/?q=we%27re+social+coders [ddg.gg]
You can thank Linus "Git" Torvalds for the world domination of GitHub as the Facebook of Social Coding. Membership in GitHub is absolutely mandatory, so much so that if you don't have a GitHub profile, you're dismissed as a crank who's simply not a coder. You see plenty of people here on SoylentNews proudly refuse to use Facebook, yet SoylentNews is all over GitHub.
GitHub is social media.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Tuesday July 26 2016, @11:35PM
I joined to see pictures of my daughter's graduation that others had taken.
I left because of GARBAGE that is fb!
Glad I'm Canadian, and it is now fully.?. deleted.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 27 2016, @11:28AM
Try re-enabling/re-creating your FB-account (using the same email-address as that first time).
Don't be too surprised about how much FB conveniently manages to provide again.
Most of your initial account was never actually deleted, just made inaccessible to normal users (of course, FB's analysis and inference tools keep access to this data).
(Score: 2) by Capt. Obvious on Tuesday July 26 2016, @09:39PM
I'm not sure if that was supposed to be funny. I read it as a somewhat serious suggestion. Not with mandatory posting (as the last sentence implies) but with a mandatory account.
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Wednesday July 27 2016, @12:11AM
I took it as serious until the last sentence nuked the shark. Comparing the proposed mandatory participation to the Selective Service and the IRS, as if that were a good thing, has to be a troll. I thought it was a pretty good troll, so I modded it Funny. It's hilarious to me that somebody else modded it Insightful, and I wonder if they finished reading before modding.
(Score: 5, Funny) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday July 27 2016, @01:27AM
As the resident staff troll, I declare it a pretty fine example of trolling. Pithy and manages to insult both sides of the argument at once.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 27 2016, @11:32AM
I like what you do for Soylent News behind the scenes, but I'm not a big fan of yours when you comment.
With that said, I read this comment and died laughing. I couldn't help but give you a funny mod because of it.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday July 27 2016, @12:57PM
S'okay, it's hard to be a fan of mine unless you appreciate the value of having a contrarian position always on hand.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Wednesday July 27 2016, @06:02PM
I facepalm whenever you start racebaiting, and roll my eyes when you use the term "natural rights," but I generally appreciate what your comments bring to the table even when I disagree with them.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday July 27 2016, @11:08PM
If you're talking about the my anti-black sentiments, those are entirely cultural and I'd rather see all the reasons for them disappear. I don't want 1/5 of black men to have served prison time by the time they're my age. The only way it's going to not happen is for them to stop glorifying illegal lifestyles though. All the hugs and understanding and vilifying of white people in the world is not going to help.
If you're talking about me bringing them up in inappropriate venues, yeah, I'll cop to doing a bit of trolling there. Not of the general community but absolutely of the blame whitey crew. I do so love slapping them in the face with a proverbial schlong.
Natural rights I'll explain another time. Been babysitting all day and I'm wore smooth out.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Thursday July 28 2016, @01:43AM
I think it's really unfortunate that you self-identify as having anti-black sentiments. If a black person began explaining to you why they had anti-white sentiments, would you find them reasonable? Even just the language is clearly intended to offend before you follow up by explaining that it's just the culture you're opposed to, as if that makes it okay to identify as anti-some-color-of-people. It's unfortunate that our language conflates color and culture, but that doesn't make your statement less cringe-worthy. Whenever somebody identifies as anti-some-part-of-humanity I worry that they're about to get some armbands out and throw a Nazi Party.
It's also unfortunate that the government refuses to let small communities do as they wish. One mans law is another mans oppression. If you tell uniformed cops to enforce laws that go against local customs, you're going to end up with some dead cops and some imprisoned citizens. This is true for poor white communities as well. Rich people seem to get around laws through means other than violence, usually. Black communities have some issues to work through, but whether or not they violate your cultural norms is not one of them.
Natural rights I'll explain another time.
SPOILER: They don't really exist, they're just part of a bullshit philosophical tradition.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday July 28 2016, @03:00AM
You just self-identified as anti-Nazi. Where precisely should we draw that particular line? What percentage of a culture would you say needed to have served prison time in their adult life to be justified in saying something is fucked up? Should we give them understanding that they treat women like pieces of meat and abandon their children? Fuck that. Black culture is a cancer and anyone who follows it are scum.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Thursday July 28 2016, @04:21AM
Nazi isn't a color. Black is something people are taught to identify as from a young age. Its immutability is implicit. Anti-black and anti-Nazi are not comparable in the slightest. Black culture has contributed a lot to white culture, and vice versa. I suspect your children grew up being influenced by black music, and if they didn't your grandchildren certainly will. Have fun with that.
And even being anti-Nazi, I have no desire to bomb or SWAT podunk klan members.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday July 28 2016, @09:00AM
Oh indeed, I have a great appreciation for black culture pre-1990 or so. It's only since then that it's become entirely toxic.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 26 2016, @11:42PM
Call it the National Socialist Party.
(Score: 2) by weeds on Wednesday July 27 2016, @01:46AM
Facebook is private, they can do whatever they like. Freedom of speech doesn't mean you get to use my press. Not to mention that the first amendment only says the government cannot restrict your speech. Next, the claim that "people who are not on Facebook might as well not exist at all" is a rather extraordinary claim. As such it requires extraordinary proof. Since this claim is made with no proof, it should be discounted out of hand. However, mandatory nationalization of any "press" is the worst idea ever. As far as mandatory enrollment in some selected social media... Wait, you can't be serious, this must be sarcasm.
Get money out of politics! [mayday.us]
(Score: 2) by TheB on Wednesday July 27 2016, @03:06AM
Just like the Republican and Democratic parties.
They are private clubs which control access to society and government.
Gatekeepers who are not answerable to the public which they control.
(Score: 2) by TheLink on Wednesday July 27 2016, @03:15AM
What you should realize is it's quality not quantity that matters more. A corrupt small government could screw you even worse than a big one. Outsource the evil stuff to friends and allies.
Facebook, Apple, Disney, Monsanto etc don't even have to _pretend_ to follow those amendments many of you consider sacred, nor a lot of the nice stuff you've got over the years.
Much of it won't apply in Corporate Land. FOIA does not apply to Apple. Freedom of speech does not apply to Facebook. Good luck with bringing in your guns to Disneyland.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Wednesday July 27 2016, @02:34PM
Indeed, all empirical evidence suggests erring on the side of a really large government is less bad than erring on the side of a really small government. On the one extreme, you have the secret police watching your every move and sending suspect people to the gulag. On the other extreme, you have random warlords simply killing anyone suspected of being either criminals or opposed to the random warlord, or suspected of being a friend or family member of the guy they just killed, because they don't have the infrastructure to determine if somebody is actually guilty of anything nor to imprison them if they are guilty of something.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 27 2016, @03:28PM
Your odds are better when there's only one top guy and his family and friends than when there are dozens and you're not sure who could be the latest wannabe.
That's why even in the days of Saddam Hussein life actually wasn't that bad as long as you kept yourself and loved ones away from Uday and similar.
The dictators who stay in power usually keep a monopoly on violence so there aren't any upstarts. You severely punish anyone who takes over villages and sets themselves up as a warlord without your permission.
Thus it becomes fairly predictable - everyone knows the rules. The rules may be really crap but everyone knows that if they follow the rules, they and their family have a decent chance of still being alive and OK next month or even next year. And that's how dictators or even conventional governments in general stay in power. Once you can't ensure some semblance of order, you're no longer a ruler or government. People might decide it's worth a gamble to try killing you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 27 2016, @01:18PM
...Facebook censorship can effectively make unpersons, and people who aren't on Facebook might as well not exist at all.
How I wish this were true... Unfortunately, FB still tracks those unpersons. Juuuussstt in case they ever give up their protest and sign up for facebook. That way, FB already knows everything about you, can 'suggest' friends and more importantly, immediately start showing you 'relevant' ads.
How I wish that not being on FB would mean you don't exist (for FB or for the morons on it)
(Score: 5, Informative) by TrumpetPower! on Tuesday July 26 2016, @09:18PM
Seriously, guys...the Post is one of those "Two-Headed Martian Elvis Lovechild Weight Loss Secrets Revealed!" tabloids. And, while it's entirely possible for them to sometimes do not-miserable reporting, they are never a good primary source.
Something like this, especially, I'd want to read from somebody just a wee little bit less incredible than the guys who run covers of Bigfoot giving a blow job to Nessie....
Cheers,
b&
All but God can prove this sentence true.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 26 2016, @09:20PM
Other way around. Bigfoot has the big dick, Nessie the long neck.
(Score: 3, Informative) by bob_super on Tuesday July 26 2016, @09:44PM
Don't believe the unwalled-aliens-throwing-meteors conspiracy theorists: Dinosaurs went extinct from the drop in fertility when they discovered how to deepthroat.
(Score: 5, Touché) by takyon on Tuesday July 26 2016, @09:20PM
Attacking the messenger again? Yawn.
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36892533 [bbc.com]
https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/757098399883681792 [twitter.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by TrumpetPower! on Tuesday July 26 2016, @09:31PM
There, that was easy, wasn't it?
So why not just link to Auntie Beeb in the first place?
b&
All but God can prove this sentence true.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday July 26 2016, @11:52PM
Even if you don't go that far, you could perhaps have at least tried to find a link in a publication that you favour, to give a - to you at least - more reliable write-up.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday July 27 2016, @12:27AM
I'll tell you exactly why this submitter didn't link to Auntie in the first place. I discovered this story in my news feeds. Specifically, I found it on RT. I wanted to submit it from IRC, via the bots. That is, I was being lazy. The bots have this thing about RT, and generally fail to make the submissions from RT. So, I did a Google search for the story. I got at least a dozen matching hits, and hundreds of near matches. I scrolled down the page, and picked one. I don't recall seeing the BBC among the hits.
So, it was more or less a random choice, and it happened to be the Post.
Now, if a few more people were making quality submissions, this substandard submission would probably have been passed over.
That, Sir, is a hint.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 27 2016, @01:16AM
Or, baring anything else, RESEARCH THE FUCKING STORY YOURSELF.
All of 10 seconds on google could have confirmed the story from other sources, and possibly given different points of view, which makes for a FAR more interesting post than "I don't accept The New York Post as a credible source. Pshaw."
There, that was easy, wasn't it?
So easy you couldn't manage it yourself.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday July 27 2016, @01:29AM
Did you miss the word "lazy"?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Wednesday July 27 2016, @07:48AM
You could always submit a better story - to add to the 2 that you have already submitted earlier this year. We always need more material from which to choose stories for the front page.
And you might also log in and use your Username - or perhaps you are just being lazy in much the same way that Runaway1956 admitted he was being when he accepted a link without supporting it with a handful of others. :)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 26 2016, @09:45PM
Why u hate News Corp?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 26 2016, @09:20PM
The NY Post just says they blocked it. It doesn't give any context - they didn't admit to blocking it for political reasons, that seems to just be assumed. Could it have been an anti-phishing/spam block? That wouldn't be surprising, after all. They said they fixed it - just whitelisted it perhaps? It doesn't give an example of what a user saw when they clicked it even.
(Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Tuesday July 26 2016, @09:21PM
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36892533 [bbc.com]
https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/757098399883681792 [twitter.com]
Yes, they say it was their automated anti-spam system.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 26 2016, @09:51PM
So it's the same old story. Dem stooges don't want anything bursting their newsbubbles aka safe spaces. So they report an inconvenient truth as spam.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Ethanol-fueled on Tuesday July 26 2016, @11:52PM
And when it comes to Democrats and the Media, Jews are behind it.
You can call me a paranoid anti-Semite all you want...but the more leaks are revealed, the more the Goys will slowly wake up to the truth.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday July 27 2016, @03:30AM
Out of curiosity, are you serious about the Jews thing, or just trolling? I see a lot of "it's dem Jooooooooooz~!" out there from the conspiracy-minded and don't understand it.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 27 2016, @03:53AM
You do the "dem moooooooslims" thing non-ironically.
But you think the "dem jooooooz" thing is meant to be a joke?
Bigotry is the same everywhere, its all bullshit but every bigot has a rationalization for why their bigotry is actually legit.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday July 27 2016, @04:33PM
Actually, no, I go "dat islaaaaaaaaaam~" if we're going to keep to form. There is a difference, in precisely the same way there is a difference between hating smallpox and hating smallpox victims.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 29 2016, @12:16AM
Hate the idea, not the ideologue.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 29 2016, @04:16AM
* Hate the idea, love the ideologue.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Tuesday July 26 2016, @10:43PM
The link in the summary redirects my browser to a story from 2010 called "Trove of JFK photos sold at auction." The redirected URL:
https://nypost.com/2010/12/09/trove-of-jfk-photos-sold-at-auction/ [nypost.com]
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Wednesday July 27 2016, @08:11AM
Thanks for the warning. And the archive link has also disappeared - I will try to find new links.
(Score: 1) by butthurt on Wednesday July 27 2016, @09:00AM
Thanks for answering. All the links are working now.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by jmorris on Tuesday July 26 2016, @10:46PM
Systems like Facebook and Twitter are simply too big to be allowed to exist. There is no way you can prevent them from being misused, the target is simply too big and attractive. It -WILL- be abused because the reward is large and the risk of meaningful punishment small whether the punishment comes from the government or the market. Pissing fights over -WHO- gets to abuse the power concentrated in these systems is pointless, they must be replaced with decentralized tech.
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Tuesday July 26 2016, @11:29PM
Or perhaps just ensure they do not censor *any* posts, regardless of how much any person or government dislikes it, including the US.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by JNCF on Tuesday July 26 2016, @11:53PM
I agree that they are too big to exist, I just apply that thinking to the federal government as well.
"You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete." --Richard Buckminster Fuller
The sad truth is, we haven't made a decentralised system that satisfies users as much as twitter does, or that occupies territories as well as the federal government. We need better decentralised tools, and it's frankly quite difficult and time-consuming to build them. Most people can't, and those who can are usually spending their time working on other projects (or just being humans). There is a lot of work to go around if we're going to decentralise human societies, and we may fail. The centralists are more organized, self-apparently.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by quintessence on Wednesday July 27 2016, @01:57AM
Eh, no.
Twitter has a degree of first mover advantage to which as long as they never fuck-up too badly, they will always have a percentage of that market. It takes time and effort to change platforms, and most people won't do it as long as the current thing is good enough. Even if you build a perfectly viable decentralized replacement, there is no compelling reason to change.
On the other hand, the next big shiny new fad is always around the corner. There is little doubt in my mind that Twitter is a blip in the scale of things. There is much hand wringing due to the end of history illusion, but everything eventually moves over for the Next Big Thing.
or that occupies territories as well as the federal government
This is a slightly different problem, as the federal government actively destroys any challenges to its power.
Hell, there are workable means to diffuse the power of government right now, but you will end up dead or in jail if you try too hard to make them a reality.
Organization is its own worse enemy, and even now Western democracies are on the cusp of the Age of Aftermath.
You are better off floating around the periphery, never appearing threatening to the powers that be, and refining your own adaptations.
Essentially, you are already decentralized.
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Wednesday July 27 2016, @04:53PM
Eh, no.
Hm, yes.
Twitter has a degree of first mover advantage to which as long as they never fuck-up too badly, they will always have a percentage of that market. It takes time and effort to change platforms, and most people won't do it as long as the current thing is good enough. Even if you build a perfectly viable decentralized replacement, there is no compelling reason to change.
Part of user satisfaction is determined by network effects. That is the hurdle every new contender has to cross, and yet facebook undermined MySpace. Find a compelling reason to change, or your decentralised solution isn't good enough. It's difficult, I know.
This is a slightly different problem, as the federal government actively destroys any challenges to its power.
Which is another way of saying that they're good at occupying territory.
Hell, there are workable means to diffuse the power of government right now, but you will end up dead or in jail if you try too hard to make them a reality.
Well that doesn't sound very workable then, does it? I'm not arguing there aren't ways to theoretically rearrange society. I'm arguing that if you try to declare yourself independant the government will invade and they will win. We don't have decentralised systems capable of defending territory against federal governments, which is another way of saying that you can't buy nuclear weapons over the darknet yet.
(Score: 2) by quintessence on Wednesday July 27 2016, @08:28PM
And yet MySpace is still around, Facebook is having to branch into other markets to stay relevant and compete with the likes of Snapchat and Instagram, and even 4Chan has lost users through their own initiatives.
Also:
The volatility of social networks was exemplified in 2006 when Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal launched an investigation into children's exposure to pornography on Myspace; the resulting media frenzy and Myspace's inability to build an effective spam filter gave the site a reputation as a "vortex of perversion". Around that time, specialized social media companies such as Twitter formed and began targeting Myspace users, while Facebook rolled out communication tools which were seen as safe in comparison to Myspace. Boyd compared the shift of white, middle-class kids from the "seedy" Myspace to the "supposedly safer haven" of Facebook, to the "white flight" from American cities; the perception of Myspace eventually drove advertisers away as well.[12] In addition, Myspace had particular problems with vandalism, phishing, malware and spam which it failed to curtail, making the site seem inhospitable.[44]
These have been cited as factors why users, who as teenagers were Myspace's strongest audience in 2006 and 2007,[45][46] had been migrating to Facebook.
I would call malware a pretty good reason to migrate.
And even though Slashdot has a larger user base by far, you are here because...
>Which is another way of saying that they're good at occupying territory.
Viet Nam, Iraq, Afghanistan... have I missed any of the major ones in the recent past? The US has been pretty good at bombing those places though. Hasn't the US normalized relations with Viet Nam?
>I'm arguing that if you try to declare yourself independant the government will invade and they will win.
See above.
Nope, what you are arguing for is rebranding one power structure with another. Let's call it decentralized, even though organized crime and like has continued pretty much unabated much to the chagrin of the US.
Get this- they can't even secure their borders.
Right now you already have several decentralized networks who simply ignores the government. When you speak of acquiring nukes, you're arguing for regime change rather than anything changes to the power structure.
Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Wednesday July 27 2016, @09:31PM
I've always suspected that the messy custom backgrounds were a big part of MySpace losing to facebook.
I would call malware a pretty good reason to migrate.
I'd think the same thing about spyware, but for some reason people haven't left facebook for Diaspora yet. I suspect facebook is doing some things very competently, given their goals. And I think they own Instagram now.
And even though Slashdot has a larger user base by far, you are here because...
I feel like SoylentNews has a self-selected user base; those who were crazy enough to leave the green site on a little red raft and start paddling. It's a small community that violently objects to itself at every opportunity, and I like that. I like seeing the opinions of old geezers who have been in the tech industry for decades. It's both profoundly interesting, and a really good reminder that you shouldn't get hung up focusing on things that happened to be particularly relevant in your youth.
Viet Nam, Iraq, Afghanistan... have I missed any of the major ones in the recent past? The US has been pretty good at bombing those places though. Hasn't the US normalized relations with Viet Nam?
I'm not convinced that we intended to occupy those places longterm. Those wars might have just been pretexts to help certain American industries that lobby heavily. The last time any states tried to secede from the union, they were invaded and federal powers were increased drastically. When they really want to occupy territory, the only thing that can stop them is another centralised government.
When you speak of acquiring nukes, you're arguing for regime change rather than anything changes to the power structure.
Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.
No, because I'm talking about everybody having access to them rather than a select handful of governments. This is power distributed. Your obvious line of argument is that I'm MAD and this will kill us all, or that random individuals can't be trusted to maintain nuclear weapons properly -- not that existing power structures would simply undergo a regime change. That's just ridiculous.
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Wednesday July 27 2016, @05:14AM
There are actually a lot of decentralized projects being created, and some really good progress already done. So far the majority seem to be targeting javascript in order to make sure any browser would be able to access the systems.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Wednesday July 27 2016, @07:08PM
There are actually a lot of decentralized projects being created, and some really good progress already done.
Yeah, what has been done is great. I'm just impatient, and would prefer there to be more. Torrents, Bitcoin, and CJDNS all stand out as the best examples to me (I like BitMessage, too, but it can't possibly scale well). Of those, I would only argue that torrents are ready for mainstream adoption (and that comes with the caveat that escaping government/corporate surveillance is difficult). Some would argue that iOS apps have mostly solved the usability problem of Bitcoins, and so far they haven't been proven wrong, but if iOS sandboxing is compromised ahead of schedule you're gonna see comments on every Bitcoin related article whining about lost coins. Folks still ignorantly act like MtGox is a black mark on Bitcoin's record, not realising that having placed their decentralised currency in centralised hands is a sign of their own incompetency and nothing more.
So far the majority seem to be targeting javascript in order to make sure any browser would be able to access the systems.
I go back and forth on how reasonable this is. Users seem to love being able to access something through a browser, so that's a huge point for it. But with modern browsers, the application can only be decentralised after the initial WebRTC connections have been made. This seems... not ideal. Do you have any particular thoughts on the issue of whether or not decentralised tools should be made to work in browsers instead of being standalone applications?
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Wednesday July 27 2016, @07:48PM
The sticky part is always the crypto, and with a proper api it shouldn't be hard to make clients in other languages. On the extremely paranoid side, I don't like the idea of trusting the javascript engine packaged in whatever browser. I'm simply not sure I'd trust my private key to a browser.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Wednesday July 27 2016, @08:24PM
The sticky part is always the crypto,
I don't follow. Sticky part of what is the crypto? Decentralised systems in general, or a specific subtopic?
and with a proper api it shouldn't be hard to make clients in other languages.
If you mean languages other than JavaScript, asm.js/WebAssembly is the obvious answer. I'm super excited about those.
On the extremely paranoid side, I don't like the idea of trusting the javascript engine packaged in whatever browser. I'm simply not sure I'd trust my private key to a browser.
inorite? There aren't many choices of browsers with WebRTC and IndexedDB support at the moment. That should improve with time.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Wednesday July 27 2016, @12:16AM
It's not that they are too big to exist, it's that they are private entities, with no obligations whatsoever to the public, but some people insist on pretending that they are some sort of public utility when they are not. Facebook has no more obligation to the wishes of the public than the New York Times does - sure, it might be nice for their business model, but it's entirely up to the business what they want to do.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jmorris on Wednesday July 27 2016, @01:18AM
It's not that they are too big to exist, it's that they are private entities, with no obligations whatsoever to the public,
So you think they would be more open if owned by the government? I'd laugh if such ideas weren't so widespread and so utterly dangerous.
Do you really want a Facebook as political as the IRS? Worse, an IRS directly tied into Facebook?
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Wednesday July 27 2016, @01:57AM
No, I'd like them to be either some kind of open protocol, or managed by an NGO of some kind. I'm thinking something more along the lines of the Apache Software Foundation.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Wednesday July 27 2016, @03:25PM
So you want the worst of all possible solutions. Zero accountability, maximum social justice.
At least corporations are answerable to market pressure and shareholders. An NGO is answerable to nothing. The Apache Foundation survives because it has no resources to attract the SJW locust and they can't figure a way to benefit directly from controlling any of the Apache projects. Yet. Contrast to Moz Corp. Or even the GNOMES got access to enough resources to attract locust.
Any non-profit or NGO who suddenly found themselves controlling a platform as powerful as Facebook or Twitter would almost instantly be converged to Social Justice. Just imagine the pressure to implement anti-hate speech protections, anti-cyber bullying, etc. And any platform with the user numbers of FB or Twitter -would- be monitized, see Moz Corp. Once there was also money flowing along with the potential for 'doing good' you could start the countdown clock until total convergence at one year.
Unless you have a magic formula to 100% keep out SJWs that no other organization has yet discovered.
Decentralized is the only way. The only way to prevent SJW convergence is to prevent the formation of attractive piles of cash and levers of control just calling for someone to use them 'for good.' Facebook can't avoid it, if Zuck wasn't already an SJW he would be quickly replaced by one.
(Score: 2) by Dunbal on Wednesday July 27 2016, @02:10AM
Systems like Facebook and Twitter are simply too big to be allowed to exist.
Too big? Exactly how big is too big? Who gets to decide the magical number of users that kicks a system into the "too big" category, who is going to be in charge of oversight, and how much is it going to cost to enforce it?
These things get to be the size that they are because people are FUCKING LAZY. I'm sure any number of useful, creative and innovative sites come in to being all the time and they go broke. Why? Because people heard of google, Facebook, Twitter, Whatsapp, Skype, Windows, or WHATEVER and these things work (sometimes barely), and people are TOO LAZY to look for something else, switch to something else, or spend time convincing others to use something else, etc. It's human nature. We are wired for the low hanging fruit. So it's pretty pointless to blame those who exploit their positions of power when it's us who are so lazy that we happily give them that power in the first place.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by jmorris on Wednesday July 27 2016, @03:35AM
I doubt any government could break Twitter or Facebook at this point, they could rally more political power than any politician.
The people who made the Internet are going to have to solve this problem, create a decentralized replacement and make a client that is backward compatible. Pray it achieves critical mass sufficient to send Facebook to the same Hell Myspace is roasting in.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 27 2016, @12:13AM
In other news Facebook, a company who's purpose is to connect us together, decided to sacrifice these values and censor some content in an attempt to save the Demos from their quagmire.
The whole idea with keeping two sets of books on the corporate values balance sheet is not to publish the second set of books.
It's interesting that they thought it mattered. Guess the Bernie folks are actually a force to be reckoned with. Too bad the DNC didn't figure this out sooner.
Maybe they align better with with the other crazy folks that think things are not just hunky dory. Like the Repub and the Libertarian's.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Wednesday July 27 2016, @01:05AM
#JillStein2016
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 3, Funny) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday July 27 2016, @01:35AM
#BeerStein2016
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 27 2016, @02:06AM
#BenStein0001NE
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday July 27 2016, @10:59AM
In 1930, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, in an effort to alleviate the effects of the... Anyone? Anyone?... the Great Depression, passed the... Anyone? Anyone? The tariff bill? The Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act? Which, anyone? Raised or lowered?... raised tariffs, in an effort to collect more revenue for the federal government. Did it work? Anyone? Anyone know the effects? It did not work, and the United States sank deeper into the Great Depression. Today we have a similar debate over this. Anyone know what this is? Class? Anyone? Anyone? Anyone seen this before? The Laffer Curve. Anyone know what this says? It says that at this point on the revenue curve, you will get exactly the same amount of revenue as at this point. This is very controversial. Does anyone know what Vice President Bush called this in 1980? Anyone? Something-d-o-o economics. "Voodoo" economics.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 27 2016, @01:20AM
One scumbag presidential candidate against another. Who cares, it makes no difference whether Kermit the Frog or Miss Piggy wins the nomination, you still end up with another muppet.