Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Wednesday January 29 2020, @10:47AM   Printer-friendly [Skip to comment(s)]
from the speak-up-now dept.

The Growing Threat to Free Speech Online:

There are times when vitally important stories lurk behind the headlines. Yes, impeachment is historic and worth significant coverage, but it's not the only important story. The recent threat of war with Iran merited every second of intense world interest. But what if I told you that as we lurch from crisis to crisis there is a slow-building, bipartisan movement to engage in one of most significant acts of censorship in modern American history? What if I told you that our contemporary hostility against Big Tech may cause our nation to blunder into changing the nature of the internet to enhance the power of the elite at the expense of ordinary Americans?

I'm talking about the poorly-thought-out, poorly-understood idea of attempting to deal with widespread discontent with the effects of social media on political and cultural discourse and with the use of social media in bullying and harassment by revoking or fundamentally rewriting Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

[...] In 1996, [Congress] passed Section 230. The law did two things. First, it declared that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." In plain English, this means that my comments on Twitter or Google or Yelp or the comments section of my favorite website are my comments, and my comments only.

But Section 230 went farther, it also declared that an internet provider can "restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable" without being held liable for user content. This is what allows virtually all mainstream social media companies to remove obscene or pornographic content. This allows websites to take down racial slurs – all without suddenly also becoming liable for all the rest of their users' speech.

It's difficult to overstate how important this law is for the free speech of ordinary Americans. For 24 years we've taken for granted our ability to post our thoughts and arguments about movies, music, restaurants, religions, and politicians. While different sites have different rules and boundaries, the overall breadth of free speech has been extraordinary.

[...] Large internet companies that possess billions of dollars in resources would be able to implement and enforce strict controls on user speech. Smaller sites simply lack the resources to implement widespread and comprehensive speech controls. Many of them would have no alternative but to shut down user content beyond minimalist input. Once again, the powerful would prevail.


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1) 2
  • (Score: 4, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @11:08AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @11:08AM (#950572)

    Is this the first comment or just first past the censor?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @04:17PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @04:17PM (#950693)

      #Freearistarchus!!!

  • (Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @11:14AM (84 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @11:14AM (#950573)

    For 24 years we've taken for granted our ability to post our thoughts and arguments about movies, music, restaurants, religions, and politicians.

    Who the fuck you think cares about your "thoughts" on movies, music, restaurants, religions, and politicians?
    Big deal, the world will be suddenly richer if you were to just shut-up of your own accord, you fucking two-eyed turd.

    Once again, the powerful would prevail.

    And you know why? Because you still refuse to "learn to code" and setup your own website, on which you can spew whatever non-sense you think valuable. A consumer sheeple thinking himself superior because he's not eating McDonalds, but sips soy-latte while still using Fecebook to exhibit his naked hollowed out ego for all to see.

    Go look in the mirror and slap yourself hard on my behalf, the thought of me touching you makes me sick. Because you have only yourself to blame, you pathetic whiner.

    • (Score: 5, Informative) by MostCynical on Wednesday January 29 2020, @11:38AM (75 children)

      by MostCynical (2589) on Wednesday January 29 2020, @11:38AM (#950578) Journal

      So? You "learn to code" a website or blog
      Where do you put it? Someone has to host it, and can say "no".
      Host it yourself?
      Now you need an ISP - and they can say "no".
      Even if you have a host and a connection to the rest of the web, how will people find your site?
      Search engines can also say "no"

      Now what?

      --
      "I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
      • (Score: 3, Touché) by Mojibake Tengu on Wednesday January 29 2020, @11:55AM

        by Mojibake Tengu (8598) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday January 29 2020, @11:55AM (#950581) Journal

        Ask a friendly intelligence service to host your website, it works for... um, never mind.

        --
        The edge of 太玄 cannot be defined, for it is beyond every aspect of design
      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @11:56AM (58 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @11:56AM (#950582)

        Don't forget banks and payment processes have the chance to say no too. Both "if you continue to host content from site XYZ we'll close your account" and "you're accepting money for something we've suddenly decided we don't like so now all the money in your account is ours and here's a bunch of fees just because we can".

        Not only can your hosting provider cut you off, the hosting provider's provider can cut them off if they refuse to not cut you off. That's what happened to 8chan after their first move.

        And instead of cutting you off, anti-bot services can harass your users until it's too annoying to use your site. Both Google and Cloudflare engage in that tactic.

        Without a near direct connection to an internet backbone like Reddit has, your site can be easily taken out and the smaller you are the less anyone will care. Yet the greater you are the easier it is to knock you out.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @12:17PM (52 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @12:17PM (#950588)

          Not to mention the moment you allow uncensored access, everyone censored elsewhere will also flock to your site: religious minorities, political dissidents, conspiracy theorists. Are you going to harbor them? What if you disagreed with their views?

          Still don't think you can become censorship happy? See Hotwheels trying to shut down 8ch. "But that's different!" you say? That's the exact excuse everyone will use as they trample on their own principles squash anything disagreeable to the system.

          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @01:10PM (51 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @01:10PM (#950605)

            Not to mention the moment you allow uncensored access, everyone censored elsewhere will also flock to your site:

            Which is absofuckinlootly idiotic. Every one of them should make their own site, join a web ring and syndicate an indexing service to search for content in their ring.
            No more Google or Facebook to pollute their equation with noise they can't control.
            If they grow large enough, it will be Google to ask them for permission to track the users of the web ring.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @01:28PM (50 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @01:28PM (#950613)

              Yeah nah, even federated networks don't want to be associated with your degenerate sicko content, they will drop their principles and force all members to sign some kind of courtesy requirement agreement retroactively just to spite you, just like they did to Gab. This of course, splits the network.

              • (Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Wednesday January 29 2020, @01:50PM

                by curunir_wolf (4772) on Wednesday January 29 2020, @01:50PM (#950622)
                Mastadon is still working. Sure, some servers block other servers, but it's still working as designed, even as the SJWs try to control the whole thing, all they are doing is isolating themselves.
                --
                I am a crackpot
              • (Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Wednesday January 29 2020, @03:01PM (23 children)

                by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Wednesday January 29 2020, @03:01PM (#950648) Journal

                Then establish your own website. Let it sit on the web unindexed. Shout from the public square, "Go to myabsolutelybrilliantthoughtthatissogreatnobodywilllisten.com to hear THE OBJECTIVE TRUTH!!!!!" That way people won't have to go to Fox/The Epoch Times or CNN/MotherJones or WSWS to learn what reality is. (Me, I think The Onion defines reality well enough...)

                Now, if this was about an ISP prohibiting you from hosting whatever, then I'd be interested. But it ain't. (And even then there are limits as circumscribed by law. Yeah, CP does cut it as one example here whether you like it or not.... I don't mind at all (in general) the thought that people are individually held liable for what they personally write and that a platform provider has the right to muzzle it. (Platform as in website owner, not ISP).

                YMMV.

                --
                Keep everyone ignorant of the magical world! KEEP AMERICA OBLIVIATE!
                • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday January 29 2020, @03:27PM (22 children)

                  by fustakrakich (6150) on Wednesday January 29 2020, @03:27PM (#950659) Journal

                  I don't mind at all (in general) the thought that people are individually held liable for what they personally write and that a platform provider has the right to muzzle it.

                  And this is why we have to protect anonymous posting and create a more robust network against interference. You have no right to hold one liable for what they say. You can turn your back and ignore it. You can control the content all you want on your computer and LAN, nowhere else. You DO have the right to sue any audience member for any offensive or illegal reaction they take, if it is a physical reaction, such as assault, or denial of goods and services.

                  The client/server model is not suitable for the WAN. It's too easy to control content. We need an ad hoc [mesh?] system that is much more difficult to track and take down. Only bulletproof tech and end this stupid argument. For the time being, it's cat and mouse.

                  --
                  Ok, we paid the ransom. Do I get my dog back? REDЯUM
                  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Wednesday January 29 2020, @06:14PM (7 children)

                    by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Wednesday January 29 2020, @06:14PM (#950758) Journal

                    Everyplace I know of has defamation laws. People can indeed sue for destruction of reputation. That's the law and it is fine.
                    If person X is paying for a space, person X gets to control what is being said there if they want to. Especially when person Y can pay for their own platform and type away and bear the consequences themselves as both speaker and publisher.
                    And I think it is fine that person X provides the digital space they can enjoy protection if person Y posts something unlawful or tortious. So long as person Y can be held liable for it.
                    And both such cases are fine.

                    YMMV.

                    However, I also may believe that if an organization wants to allow anonymous commenting then the organization can bear the liability for what is said by having allowed anonymity. I do know that cuts pretty close to the heart here at SN. And there are plenty of other circumstances (the ability to expose human rights violations, for instance) where anonymity is a good and valuable tool... But in news reporting organizations, for example, that organization can be held liable for defamation in a similar manner for publishing demonstrable lies from anonymous sources. The digital space has the protection that the digital space owner may not be held liable - put the blame on the poster. But then the poster can assume responsibility for what he or she writes.

                    You have a right to shout in the public square. That does not necessarily mean you have the right to be anonymous while doing so or that your identity should be protected when you make public utterances. The circumstances when that can occur can be constrained by law. That's also different from whether your identity deserves privacy when you are not shouting in the public square.

                    --
                    Keep everyone ignorant of the magical world! KEEP AMERICA OBLIVIATE!
                    • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday January 29 2020, @07:09PM (2 children)

                      by fustakrakich (6150) on Wednesday January 29 2020, @07:09PM (#950781) Journal

                      People can indeed sue for destruction of reputation. That's the law and it is fine.

                      Argument is pointless. Hopefully there will be tech to circumvent the problem and protect our rights.

                      --
                      Ok, we paid the ransom. Do I get my dog back? REDЯUM
                      • (Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Wednesday January 29 2020, @10:29PM (1 child)

                        by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Wednesday January 29 2020, @10:29PM (#950889) Journal

                        And it is still the law. And you can be held responsible for it. Because the rest of us say you will.

                        --
                        Keep everyone ignorant of the magical world! KEEP AMERICA OBLIVIATE!
                        • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday January 29 2020, @11:20PM

                          by fustakrakich (6150) on Wednesday January 29 2020, @11:20PM (#950903) Journal

                          Well, yeah, popular fascism at work, little I can do about that right now. But it is a work in progress.

                          --
                          Ok, we paid the ransom. Do I get my dog back? REDЯUM
                    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by barbara hudson on Wednesday January 29 2020, @08:06PM (3 children)

                      by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Wednesday January 29 2020, @08:06PM (#950811) Journal

                      Since people insist on allowing both anonymous and pseudo-anonymous posting because "muh freedom of speech", even though the only countries that don't limit freedom of speech are failed states that no longer have the infrastructure (and there it's warlords with guns to your head who censor everyone around them), here's an idea:

                      Two classes of posts -

                      1. those made by verified users, that can be modded by the community, and are permanent;

                      2. those made by unverified users and anonymous users, that are deleted automatically after x number of hours, along with all replies, and are deleted earlier if their user moderation falls below a certain threshold.

                      Two classes of users -

                      1. Verified users, who can moderate;

                      2. Unverified users, who can't moderate.

                      Problematic posts that are racist, etc., are either automatically "taken down" - deleted - after a set period of time if they are from an unknown entity, or if it's a verified user, the user can be held responsible by law enforcement and the courts.

                      Anonymous speech is thus given less weight, because if you're not ready to stand by what you said, why should anyone bother to listen, and if someone does, why should it be granted eternal life (or whatever passes for it on the internet).

                      Does anyone really give a shit what some anonymous coward says? It's got extra troll-bait and spam anyway. And why should anonymous users get a vote on moderating posts? Or multiple sock-puppet votes? It's the same as showing voter ID to vote anywhere else. You can't vote 10 times with 10 anonymous identities in real life, so why should you be able to do so online?

                      An easy way to get rid of sockpuppets and the paid shills with multiple accounts, as well as bring back some sense of responsibility. And those who want to post anonymously still can - they will still be heard, but not for very long in any one post, so what's the problem? If you don't like it, get verified ... you're not the wizard of oz behind a cheap curtain.

                      Far easier for the site maintainers as well - if they get a complaint about an anonymous post, they can just say "it will be deleted within x hours, no problem". And if they get a complaint about a verified post, if they feel the complaint is valide, they can deal with the individual, or if they feel the complaint is not valid, say "no problem, get a warrant ..."

                      --
                      SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
                      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @11:03PM (1 child)

                        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @11:03PM (#950899)

                        Wow, what a corporate boot licker. This is such a ridiculous suggestion that I have to ask: Who hurt you so badly that you're actually afraid of anonymous cowards?

                        • (Score: 0, Troll) by barbara hudson on Thursday January 30 2020, @12:07AM

                          by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Thursday January 30 2020, @12:07AM (#950912) Journal
                          I'd reverse the question - is ho hurt you so bad that you're such a precious snowflake that you have to hide behind anonymity even on the Internet? Poor baby, afraid to take responsibility for your own words. Enjoy licking Putin's boots much?
                          --
                          SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
                      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by fliptop on Thursday January 30 2020, @01:18PM

                        by fliptop (1666) on Thursday January 30 2020, @01:18PM (#951157) Journal

                        Does anyone really give a shit what some anonymous coward says?

                        Sometimes I do. B/c there are times when someone commenting on a particular story actually works for or with or in close proximity to the principles involved. Their comment may offer insight and knowledge that's valuable when considering all sides of an issue.

                        --
                        To be oneself, and unafraid whether right or wrong, is more admirable than the easy cowardice of surrender to conformity
                  • (Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Wednesday January 29 2020, @06:17PM (13 children)

                    by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Wednesday January 29 2020, @06:17PM (#950760) Journal

                    I guess one other thing.... This law is not talking about whether the WAN can be censored (AFAICT). Client/server or WAN, I support that one should be allowed access to both publish and read. One can also be held accountable for what one publishes. This is about what protections and rights one has as a publisher. In a day and age where anyone can be. (Although I do understand you disagree with this).

                    --
                    Keep everyone ignorant of the magical world! KEEP AMERICA OBLIVIATE!
                    • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday January 29 2020, @06:50PM (12 children)

                      by fustakrakich (6150) on Wednesday January 29 2020, @06:50PM (#950777) Journal

                      Of course I disagree with your stand. It is only valid absent the existence of free will. I am assuming we do have free will, that makes the listener responsible for his reaction, no matter what the claimed motivation might be.

                      Only technology can resolve this issue when fascist censorship is so popular. It has to be highly resistant against all interference.

                      --
                      Ok, we paid the ransom. Do I get my dog back? REDЯUM
                      • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Wednesday January 29 2020, @08:09PM (4 children)

                        by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Wednesday January 29 2020, @08:09PM (#950814) Journal
                        If the user is responsible for their reaction, surely the poster is responsible for their words in the first place. Responsibility applies to everyone in a civilized society.
                        --
                        SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
                        • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday January 29 2020, @08:19PM (3 children)

                          by fustakrakich (6150) on Wednesday January 29 2020, @08:19PM (#950819) Journal

                          Nope. The listener can turn their back, as most probably would. If one can, they all can. It's all on them.

                          --
                          Ok, we paid the ransom. Do I get my dog back? REDЯUM
                          • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Wednesday January 29 2020, @09:10PM (2 children)

                            by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Wednesday January 29 2020, @09:10PM (#950847) Journal

                            Maybe I don't want to go out of my way to turn my back on you because I'm heading in a particular direction and you're blocking me.

                            And if you continue after I tell you to STFU and leave me alone, there are one of two things that will happen, neither of which you will be happy with. Because either way, you will STFU. I have the right not to be harassed by any joker who won't stop talking when I tell them I'm not interested, whether it's a politician in the store parking lot at the corner, the Jehovah's Witness down the street, the satellite TV salesperson who came to my door, or the pervert who exposed himself to me last February.

                            My personal space, my rights. Go get your own personal space instead of interfering with mine.

                            --
                            SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
                            • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday January 29 2020, @09:14PM (1 child)

                              by fustakrakich (6150) on Wednesday January 29 2020, @09:14PM (#950850) Journal

                              Uh uh.. blocking is something else entirely. You can stop a person from talking to you, but if you remain within earshot while he's talking to someone else, or even himself, you're out of luck. Your personal space is inside your skin, not everything you can see or hear.

                              --
                              Ok, we paid the ransom. Do I get my dog back? REDЯUM
                              • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Wednesday January 29 2020, @09:34PM

                                by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Wednesday January 29 2020, @09:34PM (#950856) Journal

                                You're wrong from a legal standpoint. If you're talking loud enough that you're bothering the people around you, you WILL be censored. Just try being a loudmouth in a restaurant and see how long you last.

                                Or even in a public place.

                                "Hello, 911? There's a crazy guy screaming to himself that the world is about to end and we're all going to die of coronavirus. I have videos. People are getting pissed off. You might want to arrest him for his own protection."

                                Even the public commons has rules and regulations. Disturbing the peace is a real thing. So is public mischief. This is both.

                                --
                                SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
                      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Wednesday January 29 2020, @10:27PM (6 children)

                        by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Wednesday January 29 2020, @10:27PM (#950886) Journal

                        And it is no way fascist censorship. We are not talking about what government can or cannot allow you to say.

                        Your argument is akin to, "I'm free to swing my fists wherever they want and if they intercept your nose then it's your fault for feeling the pain and/or not getting out of the way."

                        And you're right. We are on such diametric poles on this that there will be no agreement. Only presentation of where we differ to let others who read decide.

                        But it all comes back to whether or not you think your rights are unlimited. And I think we've been down this road before: I believe rights have limits and responsibilities. You do not. So yeah, there won't be any way to bridge that little gap.

                        --
                        Keep everyone ignorant of the magical world! KEEP AMERICA OBLIVIATE!
                        • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday January 29 2020, @11:15PM (5 children)

                          by fustakrakich (6150) on Wednesday January 29 2020, @11:15PM (#950902) Journal

                          Some rights do have limits, never said otherwise. And the article is about government censorship, and how it uses the civilian marketplace to enforce it. Anyone that acts as an agent of the government should be under the same constitutional constraints as the government itself. So, it is up to us to demand the same from the ISPs. They are acting under and by the authority of the government. Our failure to overcome this problem necessitates the creation of technology to do it for us, to mechanize the process, like any other machine. We had to invent airplane in order to temporarily free us from the bonds of gravity. Now we need something to free us from the shackles of censorship and all forms of fascism.

                          Poetry, baby!

                          --
                          Ok, we paid the ransom. Do I get my dog back? REDЯUM
                          • (Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Thursday January 30 2020, @07:54PM (2 children)

                            by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Thursday January 30 2020, @07:54PM (#951373) Journal

                            Interesting. I disagree, because there is nothing in this law that renders Facebook or Twitter to be an agent of the government. They do not "have authority of" nor do they act for the government. They have laws they must obey and protections they are afforded under the law. That is nowhere near "being" government. If they did they would, for example, be able to do things like arrest copyright violators or append fines directly to your account for violations. (And no, not in favor of that....)

                            (It also calls up the argument of whether censorship is limited to government or if it is censorship at all when private entities enforce their own policies, but that's been argued to death).

                            I'd also very much doubt that you will ever find a technology which will give the freedom you seek. One can't use technology to fix a problem with human nature. (IMO). And if it could.... then the other side would employ a counter exploit to get their way. Which is scarier. But being wrong about that would also be interesting.

                            The other thing... People are free to be fascists, socially or voluntarily. Companies are free to enact certain (but not all) fascist policies. Just as they are free to be Antifa. Or you run the risk of biting your own tail of liberty. I think you confuse social fascism with allowing government to be fascist or take fascist actions, which is something one must indeed guard against, especially when they gain the reins of government leadership.

                            --
                            Keep everyone ignorant of the magical world! KEEP AMERICA OBLIVIATE!
                            • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday January 30 2020, @10:17PM (1 child)

                              by fustakrakich (6150) on Thursday January 30 2020, @10:17PM (#951458) Journal

                              If the government tells Facebook to take something down or put something up, and yes, even when answering a warrant. Facebook's action is an act of the government. And, let's not forget all those NSLs that we can only speculate about. Secret letters and secret laws do exist.

                              I'd also very much doubt that you will ever find a technology which will give the freedom you seek.

                              Maybe yes, maybe no, but it sure can't hurt to keep looking, and to reduce the authorities' advantage as much as possible. So, it's going to be an eternal arms race until people quit stomping on each other. The biggest problem right now is obedience. We are supposed remind the government it is there to serve, not command

                              --
                              Ok, we paid the ransom. Do I get my dog back? REDЯUM
                              • (Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Monday February 03 2020, @05:43PM

                                by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Monday February 03 2020, @05:43PM (#953193) Journal

                                Secret letters exist. Secret laws.... well, the trouble is that you'd have to find one to know it is there. I'm much more worried about administrative regulations (that carry the force of law). And from your perspective I'd see that as a meaningless distinction.

                                When a business complies with a subpoena or a letter or something else from government it just doesn't make them a government agent, but as I suspected there's no way we can reach agreement on that.

                                But I'll walk back what I said a little: We know that things like end-to-end encryption and drive locking is possible. I still don't believe in a foolproof system that could not be hacked or compromised by technology, although I hear Apple is getting close. ;) Even if one could do so, the powers that be will not allow that to stand. Even if the technology stands there is always the wrench problem [xkcd.com]. Government's most noble purpose is to serve, yes. But to serve whom and why are the million dollar questions. Anyway, thanks for sharing!

                                --
                                Keep everyone ignorant of the magical world! KEEP AMERICA OBLIVIATE!
                          • (Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Monday February 03 2020, @03:49AM (1 child)

                            by hendrikboom (1125) Subscriber Badge on Monday February 03 2020, @03:49AM (#953005) Homepage Journal

                            Canadian law asserts certain rights, and also recognizes that rights may be in conflict.

                            • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday February 03 2020, @04:43AM

                              by fustakrakich (6150) on Monday February 03 2020, @04:43AM (#953020) Journal

                              My whole point is that any law limiting free speech, no matter what country, has to be rendered moot by any means we can dream up. Since free speech isn't very popular, we are totally dependent on finding/creating a technology that no authority can control or shut down. Untethering from the ISP will go a long way

                              --
                              Ok, we paid the ransom. Do I get my dog back? REDЯUM
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @04:20PM (24 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @04:20PM (#950696)

                they will drop their principles and force all members to sign some kind of courtesy requirement agreement retroactively just to spite you, just like they did to Gab. This of course, splits the network.

                And punches the Nazis in the face!

                Maybe, if you do not want to be deplatformed, you should stop being a criminal? Otherwise, you will be ostracized for your stupidity (aka, "polticial incorrectness").

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @04:59PM (23 children)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @04:59PM (#950715)

                  Here is a person completely subverted by the system, believing that thoughts can be criminal. By merely pulling a few strings, he can be trained on someone he believes to be a nazi, the target doesn't even have to be one in reality. How very convenient!

                  Let me get you a truck driving job while you're at it.

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @07:37PM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @07:37PM (#950793)

                    Obviously, AC, you are of an inferior race, based on your performance on the intelligence test that is SN. You will be liquidated, exterminated, genocided, and all like you. I like to call it "The Penultimate Solution". But this is just my thoughts, so nothing illegal about it, except violating the International Convention Against Genocide. Which means it is illegal. But in any case, you firken Nazi, you will be endeadened. After you are dead, we will allow you to have all the free speech you want.

                  • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Wednesday January 29 2020, @08:12PM (21 children)

                    by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Wednesday January 29 2020, @08:12PM (#950816) Journal

                    Mere thoughts aren't criminal, no matter how warped, perverted, etc., they are. Putting them into either word or deed, on the other hand, can be. Try posting a death threat against POTUS and see what happens. If you're in the US or any other member 5 Eyes country, you have no such thing as "anonymity" on the internet anyway. If your VPN passes through any of those countries, same caveat applies.

                    But give it a try ... we'll get the popcorn.

                    --
                    SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
                    • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday January 29 2020, @08:22PM (20 children)

                      by fustakrakich (6150) on Wednesday January 29 2020, @08:22PM (#950820) Journal

                      Word and deed are two separate things. Word control is thought control, very evil.

                      --
                      Ok, we paid the ransom. Do I get my dog back? REDЯUM
                      • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Wednesday January 29 2020, @08:29PM (9 children)

                        by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Wednesday January 29 2020, @08:29PM (#950827) Journal
                        Word control is NOT thought control. Unless, of course, you're a mindless idiot who immediately says everything that comes to mind. People who do that just aren't credible outside crazy Pentecostal "speaking in tongues" events.
                        --
                        SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
                        • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday January 29 2020, @08:48PM (8 children)

                          by fustakrakich (6150) on Wednesday January 29 2020, @08:48PM (#950837) Journal

                          Sorry, wrong again, you shall not prohibit people from writing what they are thinking. You just don't have that kind of right. Our opinions mean nothing. Censorship is always evil. We have to defeat it by any means necessary.

                          --
                          Ok, we paid the ransom. Do I get my dog back? REDЯUM
                          • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Wednesday January 29 2020, @08:59PM (7 children)

                            by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Wednesday January 29 2020, @08:59PM (#950844) Journal

                            If it's my writing materials (for example paper, printer, ink) I certainly CAN prevent you from writing anything at all. Go buy your own.

                            Same as if you then post your manifesto on public property, like a bus shelter. Not your property, either get the owner's permission, or screw off.

                            You can always use your wifi to set up a mesh network host. Then you're free to broadcast, and anyone nearby can pick it up - and if they judge it worthy, they can pass it along. And if they judged it crap, they would just delete it. And if you posted too much crap, they'd ban your node. Worked with FidoNET.

                            If I;m in a public place and you start telling me that I need Jesus in my life and won't stop even after I've told you a dozen times I'm an atheist, your right to your religious beliefs and freedom of speech doesn't give you the right to harass me. Though you can try to tell it to the judge after you're arrested for harassment.

                            --
                            SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
                            • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday January 29 2020, @09:43PM (6 children)

                              by fustakrakich (6150) on Wednesday January 29 2020, @09:43PM (#950861) Journal

                              If it's my writing materials

                              Again that's not the issue. I can find my own material.

                              Defacing public property is not a speech issue. Doesn't apply here.

                              And as far as networking is concerned, I have always advocated for a way to bypass the service provider. But when somebody has the only provider in town, they shall only be allowed to limit bandwidth, content shall remain untouchable, no matter who takes offense.

                              People yelling into your ear is another thing entirely.You have no right to stop the Jesus dude from preaching on the corner. You can complain about and regulate the decibel level, and the bright lights, but nothing else. What makes you think you have a right to control everything within earshot? That's insane. But, yeah, Canada, no 1st amendment there, anything can happen.

                              --
                              Ok, we paid the ransom. Do I get my dog back? REDЯUM
                              • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Thursday January 30 2020, @12:50AM (5 children)

                                by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Thursday January 30 2020, @12:50AM (#950928) Journal
                                You don't have wifi? If you do, set up your own wifi node as part of a local mesh network and let your neighbours know. So you won't reach as far, and it's more work. But a laptop with wifi and a web server (or even a Telnet server) works for your neighbours. Unless your neighbours aren't interested, but you have no right to an audience. -

                                Same as you can get your own printer and print up pamphlets and distribute them. Internet access is not a right, and isn't needed for you to exercise your right to freedom of expression. Or you can make yourself a sandwich board sign and walk around town with your message in plain public view.

                                Of course if you're a lazy keyboard warrior, all that is too much to ask. Slacktivists deserve to be ignored.

                                --
                                SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
                                • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday January 30 2020, @01:15AM (4 children)

                                  by fustakrakich (6150) on Thursday January 30 2020, @01:15AM (#950934) Journal

                                  You are being repetitive. Those aren't even the things I'm discussing.

                                  --
                                  Ok, we paid the ransom. Do I get my dog back? REDЯUM
                                  • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Thursday January 30 2020, @01:58AM (3 children)

                                    by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Thursday January 30 2020, @01:58AM (#950952) Journal

                                    Yes they are part and parcel of the discussion. You're complaining about censorship. I'm pointing out that if you want to be uncensored, create your own mesh network using the wifi available on every laptop. You can run your own frt, http, telnet, and Usenet nodes, no censorship. You can also express yourself in other more traditional ways. You have no right to demand that others provide you with any censor-free platform. Make your own and quit crying - others have done it, and some of them have no other choice.

                                    If you have either a laptop with a wifi adapter or a desktop with a wifi router you can have your own network. Free of all censorship. What you can't do is expect anyone to support your point of view. You need to make your case, and you haven't. You haven't proposed any sort of solution to the main topic. I did. It allows for anonymous posts, takes the burden off site owners since all anonymous posts disappear after a set time, and gives a way to have non-anonymous users accountable.

                                    You just don't want accountability. In other words, you want to have your cake and eat it too. Instead of whining, why not try to come up with a solution?

                                    --
                                    SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
                                    • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday January 30 2020, @02:03AM (2 children)

                                      by fustakrakich (6150) on Thursday January 30 2020, @02:03AM (#950956) Journal

                                      Yes they are part and parcel of the discussion.

                                      And I already covered it. No need to do it again.

                                      --
                                      Ok, we paid the ransom. Do I get my dog back? REDЯUM
                                      • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Thursday January 30 2020, @02:31AM (1 child)

                                        by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Thursday January 30 2020, @02:31AM (#950975) Journal
                                        So quit your whining and propose a .solution already . TFA lays the problem out pretty clearly. Or at least point out why my solution doesn't work for anyone. (Just because it doesn't work for you isn't my problem - all anyone can expect is something that works better than the status quo.
                                        --
                                        SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
                                        • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday January 30 2020, @04:40AM

                                          by fustakrakich (6150) on Thursday January 30 2020, @04:40AM (#951031) Journal

                                          So quit your whining and propose a .solution already

                                          Already have, many times. The solution has to come from the voters. They have to vote for an open internet, free of all meddling. The technical solutions to censorship will have to come from the people with the means. They don't need me to know which direction to take.

                                          --
                                          Ok, we paid the ransom. Do I get my dog back? REDЯUM
                      • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Wednesday January 29 2020, @09:05PM (9 children)

                        by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Wednesday January 29 2020, @09:05PM (#950845) Journal

                        Word and deed are two separate things. Word control is thought control, very evil.

                        Make up your mind. Either words and deeds are separate things, or they aren't. Words are not thoughts. Thoughts are what goes on inside your skull. Words are a means to communicate thoughts to others, and only as they're put into expression. Words you keep in your skull are never censored. Your thoughts are still your own. And sometimes others would like to keep it that way because they are bored with the same flawed arguments over and over.

                        Even the cavemen knew the difference between their drawings and the actual real-world object.

                        --
                        SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
                        • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday January 29 2020, @09:21PM (8 children)

                          by fustakrakich (6150) on Wednesday January 29 2020, @09:21PM (#950851) Journal

                          If you don't like the words don't read them. You have no right to stop a person from writing them.

                          Even the cavemen knew the difference between their drawings and the actual real-world object.

                          Exactly, the words are just drawings, not the object. They are recorded thoughts which nobody has a right to obstruct from people who want to see.

                          I'm afraid you are the one making the flawed argument. Only technology can actually settle it. Something to make censorship impractical if not impossible.

                          --
                          Ok, we paid the ransom. Do I get my dog back? REDЯUM
                          • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Wednesday January 29 2020, @09:30PM (7 children)

                            by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Wednesday January 29 2020, @09:30PM (#950854) Journal

                            I have every right to tell people not to spew their nonsense around me. It's called personal space for a reason. Violate it, pay the consequences.

                            Technology can't make censorship impossible, because anything technology can do, other technology can undo. Or, in the case of you insisting that other people listen to your views, a couple of cops with a harassment complaint. Can't beat low tech.

                            And if you're depending on my resources to disseminate your words, I can certainly stop you. My printer, my ink, my paper, go buy your own.

                            --
                            SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
                            • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday January 29 2020, @09:52PM (6 children)

                              by fustakrakich (6150) on Wednesday January 29 2020, @09:52PM (#950865) Journal

                              Now you're just repeating yourself. I have addressed all that.

                              Any law regulating content is unjust. We have to use whatever we have to defeat it.

                              --
                              Ok, we paid the ransom. Do I get my dog back? REDЯUM
                              • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Thursday January 30 2020, @12:41AM (5 children)

                                by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Thursday January 30 2020, @12:41AM (#950924) Journal
                                No we don't. We regulate other content all the time. Like what goes into food, spectrum allocation, etc. You're free to set up your own system; but you're not free to demand that I design and write and host it. And you're the one repeating yourself, day after day, year after year. Look, I get that you're an anarchist, but anarchists are self-defeating / they can't even organize themselves because, well, anarchy.
                                --
                                SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
                                • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday January 30 2020, @01:19AM (4 children)

                                  by fustakrakich (6150) on Thursday January 30 2020, @01:19AM (#950936) Journal

                                  they can't even organize themselves because, well, anarchy.

                                  :-) The machine will do all the work

                                  --
                                  Ok, we paid the ransom. Do I get my dog back? REDЯUM
                                  • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Thursday January 30 2020, @02:01AM (3 children)

                                    by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Thursday January 30 2020, @02:01AM (#950954) Journal
                                    Dream on. You expect anarchists to be able to code? That requires organizational skills, something anarchists don't have, because they're anarchists.
                                    --
                                    SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
                                    • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday January 30 2020, @02:05AM (2 children)

                                      by fustakrakich (6150) on Thursday January 30 2020, @02:05AM (#950960) Journal

                                      Such bigotry! That's not true at all. Evidently you don't understand the concept of cooperation. You disappoint me

                                      --
                                      Ok, we paid the ransom. Do I get my dog back? REDЯUM
                                      • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Thursday January 30 2020, @02:26AM (1 child)

                                        by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Thursday January 30 2020, @02:26AM (#950973) Journal

                                        I understand the concept of cooperation just fine. I also understand that anarchies are failed states. We have a few of them floating around right now - go live in Somalia and you won't have to worry about censorship because you'll have far bigger things to worry about.

                                        Anarchists are seriously immature. But that's okay - they can't really get their shit together to be taken seriously. It's a self-limiting problem.

                                        --
                                        SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
                                        • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday January 30 2020, @04:21AM

                                          by fustakrakich (6150) on Thursday January 30 2020, @04:21AM (#951027) Journal

                                          anarchies are failed states

                                          Amusing thought, but obviously you don't understand the concept of anarchism. Let us know when you figure it out.

                                          --
                                          Ok, we paid the ransom. Do I get my dog back? REDЯUM
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @12:23PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @12:23PM (#950591)

          Oh? You'd like to see adult products to adults? We've closed your bank account. Fuck off you sickos. Bank somewhere else.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @12:43PM (3 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @12:43PM (#950594)

          Don't forget banks and payment processes have the chance to say no too.

          Are we in the topic of freedom of speech, or the topic of "the fucking right to bullshit people and take their money"?
          Because if it is the former, "banks and payment processes (sic)" are irrelevant.

          If howevs we are in the latter case, then get the fuck out and go join the fucking former army major, currently a hypocritical whiner [time.com] who cries crocodile tears "for the people" and gets paid for it, your comment is just as nonconsequential to the "freedom of speech vs the Powers" as his whining.

          • (Score: 2) by EEMac on Wednesday January 29 2020, @03:03PM (2 children)

            by EEMac (6423) on Wednesday January 29 2020, @03:03PM (#950650)

            > Because if it is the former, "banks and payment processes (sic)" are irrelevant.

            Sorry, but no. All web sites need an internet connection, any controversial web site soon needs DDoS protection, and the whole thing runs on electricity. Money has to change hands somewhere.

            Some of these things you may be able to pay for with cash. But probably not all. That's why banks and payment processors are involved. If they say no, your operation shuts down.

            • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @03:43PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @03:43PM (#950671)

              Sorry, but no. All web sites need an internet connection, any controversial web site soon needs DDoS protection, and the whole thing runs on electricity. Money has to change hands somewhere.

              See? The very reason MDC was a superhuman by your standards [soylentnews.org], as he managed to maintain 2-3 personal sites even when he was homeless. Yet you need banks and they'll sure censor you, yea? You poor poor wanker, go hide yourself within the herd, there will be bleating reassurances you are unhappy-with-a-rational-reason.

            • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Wednesday January 29 2020, @08:16PM

              by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Wednesday January 29 2020, @08:16PM (#950817) Journal

              Sorry, but no. All web sites need an internet connection, any controversial web site soon needs DDoS protection, and the whole thing runs on electricity. Money has to change hands somewhere

              No, they don't need a connection to the Internet. Never heard of mesh networks? Peer to peer still works.

              Laptop with wifi? Check. Phone with wifi? Check. Desktop connected to a wifi router? Check. Countries that shut down "the Internet" find that they can't.

              --
              SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @12:20PM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @12:20PM (#950589)

        Try static IP, Telstra [telstra.com.au] for $10/mo, dodo may still give you one by default [whirlpool.net.au], dyndns with the rest and then host it at home.

        Besides, this world is yuuuge, you will find someone willing to host it. The Man is after sci-hub for a long time already, and the site is still available on different TLDs.

        And who knows? Maybe you learn to code well enough and get to invent something better than Freenet or Tor.

        • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @12:56PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @12:56PM (#950598)

          Doesn't stop script kiddies from trying to be a social media hero by trying to encourage their cyber buddies to help DDOS even decentralized systems. See multiple twitter twits attempting to squash Tor and ZeroNet for daring to host EEEEEEEEVVVIIILLLL.

          Everyone's a hero in their own story, fighting against evil doers of course.

        • (Score: 2) by Coward, Anonymous on Wednesday January 29 2020, @05:19PM

          by Coward, Anonymous (7017) on Wednesday January 29 2020, @05:19PM (#950724) Journal

          Besides, this world is yuuuge, you will find someone willing to host it. The Man is after sci-hub for a long time already, and the site is still available on different TLDs.

          Yeah, go live in Russia if free speech is so important to you!

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by c0lo on Wednesday January 29 2020, @12:33PM (8 children)

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday January 29 2020, @12:33PM (#950592) Journal

        Pssst, Mr. MostCynical-with-temporarily-diminished-cynicism-capacities, let me share with you a secret: the real problem is not how to host your content, is finding something relevant or interesting to say (grin)

        If you have something that has value for a reasonable small herd of people, you will find ways to say it before the censorship kicks in, maybe even forever - the cost of running after the small independent fries are simply too high for... ummm... The Big Ugly Man.
        If you have a large crowd of sheeple that just can't wait the hear what you'll be saying next (that is, you reached the celeb status), you will find a way to communicate you gospel in spite of Google or TLA-ies.

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @12:46PM (7 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @12:46PM (#950595)

          Silly c0lo, thinking you have freedom after speech, after all, freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. Now say it again to the people you are not allowed to criticize.

          • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday January 29 2020, @12:59PM (6 children)

            by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday January 29 2020, @12:59PM (#950599) Journal

            Now say it again to the people you are not allowed to criticize.

            Just curios on who do you have in mind, Trump maybe?

            (grin)

            --
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
            • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @01:20PM (5 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @01:20PM (#950608)

              Why don't you give it a try to see if Trump cannot be criticized?

              • (Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday January 29 2020, @01:43PM (1 child)

                by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday January 29 2020, @01:43PM (#950620)

                Why don't you give it a try to see if Trump cannot be criticized?

                LOL at the parenthesis

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @05:35PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @05:35PM (#950731)

                  are you inserting your shit whistle where it doesn't exist?

              • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday January 29 2020, @01:48PM

                by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday January 29 2020, @01:48PM (#950621) Journal

                Because, even when I'm wasting my time, I try to keep at least the appearance of relevancy.
                Trump? Taking a snapshot of a Maccas burger before throwing it in a trash bin and then posting the photo on my facebook page** carries more relevancy than Trump.

                ** assuming I'd remember the 24+ almost-random-letters password I used some zillions of years ago when I created my fb account, that is.

                --
                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
              • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday January 29 2020, @07:56PM (1 child)

                by DeathMonkey (1380) on Wednesday January 29 2020, @07:56PM (#950806) Journal

                Why don't you give it a try to see if Trump cannot be criticized?

                Well Bolton criticized Trump and now the White House is censoring his book. [cnn.com]

                Does that count?

                • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Wednesday January 29 2020, @08:24PM

                  by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Wednesday January 29 2020, @08:24PM (#950823) Journal

                  That's not censorship. A threat is just free publicity. You know, the best money-can't-buy kind. Like Nixon gave The Pentagon Papers [wikipedia.org].

                  Trump should have learned by now that he's not even Richard Nixon in terms of credibility.

                  --
                  SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @02:51PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @02:51PM (#950642)

        Anything that makes the location of the content less easy to censor.

        The internet of this generation is the telephone line of the previous. Just like getting to the internet used to require 'dialing up' to a hub which then routed you to the network, so today should the internet be seen as an underlying transport, not the destination. Getting people used to this again after 15-20 years of 'plug in and go' internet access will take some work, but it is the only way to retain any form of communication freedom going forward. The other technological, infrastructure, and cultural changes needed to make this work would make for a good soylent poll or self-written article for further debate.

      • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Wednesday January 29 2020, @04:07PM (1 child)

        by Thexalon (636) on Wednesday January 29 2020, @04:07PM (#950685)

        Where do you put it? Someone has to host it, and can say "no".

        I mean, they could in theory, but the market exists, and that means there are hosting providers out there willing to host everything from the Revolutionary Communist Party to neo-Nazis. I think you're underestimating the degree to which all money is money and businesses want money more than they care about ideology.

        Host it yourself? Now you need an ISP - and they can say "no".

        Again, they could, but they don't, because they want the money more than they want to censor you, and censoring you is a bunch of administrative headaches they don't want.

        Even if you have a host and a connection to the rest of the web, how will people find your site? Search engines can also say "no"

        Then you post links on other relevant sites, or in online chats, and/or reach your audience via email or snail mail or in-person.

        The First Amendment gives you a right to speak or write what you like. It does not give you the right to use other people's stuff to speak or write or publicize what you're saying, nor does it give you the right to be heard or read or taken seriously by anybody.

        --
        The inverse of "I told you so" is "Nobody could have predicted"
        • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @05:59PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @05:59PM (#950745)

          "The First Amendment gives you a right to speak or write what you like. It does not give you the right to use other people's stuff to speak or write or publicize what you're saying, nor does it give you the right to be heard or read or taken seriously by anybody."

          While I agree with you in theory the problem is that the internet has become ubiquitous, and we need to start treating it as a public utility that cannot be denied to anyone for ideological reasons. The tricky part is coming up with rules to define which services are essential. The ISP is the obvious first choice, they control basic access.

          The trickier ones are hosting companies and payment processors. I think hosting companies are unnecessary to include, we should fix ISPs to require that they allow people to host their own servers. That way anyone can host themselves on the already protected ISP connection. Otherwise any service that provides "host your site here" should not discriminate on the content of said site, unless illegal obviously. Any other service can implement whatever rules they'd like, Twitter and Facebook can ban whomever they'd like.

          Payment processors are the next possible problem, but there are so many options out there that someone would need to build a court case showing that they have been denied every possible option. I haven't paid a whole lot of attention to the complaints in this area, but I think there is a distinction between not providing someone with an account and blocking existing customers from sending a specific person money. If all credit card companies refuse to authorize payments from their customers to some entity then that is wrong. If credit card companies refuse to create an account for some fragile white wife beating, lynch mob inciting, small hands having small brained idiot racist, well I think that is fine as long as there are alternative methods they could receive money. If not then payment processors will have to become regulated as public services as well.

    • (Score: 2) by Mer on Wednesday January 29 2020, @01:08PM (5 children)

      by Mer (8009) on Wednesday January 29 2020, @01:08PM (#950603)

      No one ever learns the full stack.
      One guy did, he got dementia and died homeless.

      --
      Shut up!, he explained.
      • (Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @01:39PM (4 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @01:39PM (#950616)

        One guy did, he got dementia and died homeless.

        Fucking A!
        What you fail to add is that MDC brought more value and more freedom of speech by his eclectic collection of personal sites than all the whiners on S/N. When he had something to say, homeless as he was, he said it on one of his sites, no sucking up to google or facebook, no concerns of deplatforming, no alt-right or 2A idiocies.

        You hear me, idiots? All the non-sense you are churning on S/N day after day does value less than a clipped toe-nail of a homeless guy who was more deeply humane in his speech than you sheeple will ever manage to be. Because you are not able to shit anything out of your mouth or typing fingers but the fears that others instilled in you!

        Fucking hell, you are making me sick!

        Long live, MDC, even dead you are more alive than this idiotic herd.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @02:43PM (3 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @02:43PM (#950637)

          Yeah, once it is clear you are one of those "sheeple"-throwing people, I tune you out. At least throw in a denigrating "Joe Sixpack" here and there to keep it fresh.

          It must be so frustrating for you every day to be surrounded by all those obviously mentally inferior to you people.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @03:16PM (2 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @03:16PM (#950655)

            It must be so frustrating for you every day to be surrounded by all those obviously mentally inferior to you people.

            How it makes me feel is truly irrelevant, it won't change how you behave even one iota.

            Yeah, once it is clear you are one of those "sheeple"-throwing people, I tune you out. At least throw in a denigrating "Joe Sixpack" here and there to keep it fresh.

            Now that's something slightly worrisome. Or it should be. For you, I mean.
            More precisely, your need of freshness to be able to tune in. Very similar with how pedos can't get an erection in the absence of youngsters.
            That being said, I might be playing the court's fool but rest assured I'm not a clown for hire to provide you with a fresh entertainment, sorry for that

            Otherwise, good riddance and may you enjoy it better than my comment. kthxb

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @05:36PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @05:36PM (#950733)

              How it makes me feel is truly irrelevant,

              I suppose so. The feelings of a rock are pretty irrelevant. Now, please sit and be quiet, you're obstructing my view.

            • (Score: 2) by Subsentient on Thursday January 30 2020, @01:26AM

              by Subsentient (1111) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 30 2020, @01:26AM (#950939) Homepage Journal

              Patterns in the nature of people just keep repeating themselves. Ever notice how you'll meet 10-20 people in a decade who seem almost identical? Their beliefs, their story, their appearance, even their jobs.

              The real stupidity comes in the people who notice it in others but fail to notice it in themselves. Hell, I've seen probably 20 people like me in the last 3 years.

              People like you are common. People who think they know better while simultaneously being a giant pulsating tumor of a human being. Take a good, hard look in the mirror. If you look close enough, you'll see the same abhorrence inside of you.

              --
              If I'm too negative, you're too ignorant not to be! -Foamy the Squirrel
    • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday January 29 2020, @06:14PM

      by DeathMonkey (1380) on Wednesday January 29 2020, @06:14PM (#950757) Journal

      Who the fuck you think cares about your "thoughts" on movies, music, restaurants, religions, and politicians?

      You obviously care, otherwise you wouldn't be posting your thoughts right now.

      Person complains about people posting things on the internet in a post about something on the internet....

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by ilsa on Wednesday January 29 2020, @07:07PM

      by ilsa (6082) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday January 29 2020, @07:07PM (#950780)

      And here we have a perfect example of why things are going in the direction they are.

      The poster complains about the lack of speech, but they completely ignore the impact of throwing millions of assholes onto services where they can anonymously spew whatever they want with limited repercussions.

      eg: I left Slashdot because I could no longer take the growing levels of alt-right, incel, hateful nonsense. And that's what people do. They walk away. The internet is the single most democratized communications medium ever invented. And it's been taken over by the worst aspects of humanity as a result, resulting in a medium that only the most stubborn are willing to wade through.

      The only way people can take control of the situation is if they are willing to take _responsibility_ as well. The overwhelming majority do not, so there is this nice big gap left wide open for whoever has both the power and the willingness to manage it. The comparatively few individuals that try... well... you can only go so far before you just completely f__king exhausted and can't do it anymore, because the number of assholes outnumber you by several orders of magnitude, and altruism only goes so far against such an overwhelming force.

      So yeah, people (not just Americans) are handing over the reigns of power to the "elite", because the alternative takes too much effort and there's not enough people willing to step up to the plate.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @11:14AM (17 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @11:14AM (#950574)

    America will be MADE to be in line with the rest of the world, gaze quietly upon the traitors who tell you it is for your own good.

    In 10 years time, nobody will be allowed to post freely on the internet. Everything you hear will be by word of mouth, the internet will be like cable television. All media would chaff under strict licensing and legal requirements. Any underground media would undoubtedly be controlled opposition to herd all the rebels together. Anything outside the two opposing views would be banned. The best thing of all? You will be made to be supportive of the ban, for the greater good, you wouldn't want to be ostracized by society.

    In such a successful totalitarian society, everyone squashed under it is also the very pillar supporting it.

    • (Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @11:25AM (5 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @11:25AM (#950577)

      In 10 years time, nobody will be allowed to post freely on the internet.

      Learn to code [soylentnews.org], mofo.
      Then you won't depend on Facebook or TMB to carry your speech. Think a bit, if this isn't the ultimate expression of freedom and empowerment I don' t know what else is.

      • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @11:41AM (4 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @11:41AM (#950579)

        >Implying nobody has tried to make licensing requirements for programming.

        Unlicensed programmers would antagonized by the entire system, just like any undesirable today.

        Take antivaxers as an example, how they are seen today, did they deserve that?
        Yes? That's how you'll be treating unlicensed programmers.
        No? You'll be thrown into the pit like the lot of them, doesn't even matter if your views are completely unrelated.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @12:56PM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @12:56PM (#950597)

          Take antivaxers as an example, how they are seen today, did they deserve that?

          Yes.

          Yes? That's how you'll be treating unlicensed programmers.

          And your point is? The antivaxers can still drain their daily purulent collection of stupidity on the internet just fine, whoever acquired the kink to read such shit knows where to find them.

          Look, the right to free speech comes with no warranty that you will be listened, that a risk any "speaker" should already be aware of.
          If you feel the compulsion to say something, you will find ways to say it on today's internet, Google/NSA or not.

          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @01:17PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @01:17PM (#950607)

            And your point is? The antivaxers can still drain their daily purulent collection of stupidity on the internet just fine, whoever acquired the kink to read such shit knows where to find them.

            This is exactly the attitude I want to highlight. "Deviants will be expelled".

            Look, the right to free speech comes with no warranty that you will be listened, that a risk any "speaker" should already be aware of.

            Like atheists, free thinkers, political dissidents and the other undesirable deviants of society at various points in history, you will learn to expel them in defense of the system, you will justify how it is necessary and you will be unrepentant about it.

            That's the brand of Totalitarianism to come, the very people it crushes under its boots are also its most fervent supporters. Big Brother doesn't need a Police State, when people can be taught to go police themselves. The whole system will be autonomous, like some kind of freakish mega-organism, trying to keep itself "healthy".

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @02:21PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @02:21PM (#950628)

              This is exactly the attitude I want to highlight. "Deviants will be expelled".

              Cool, I just started to get bored of hypocritical society dances of the insincere "inclusion" and "CoC" kind.
              Time for those expelled to own their ideas, assume all consequences and have the courage to establish their own place in the global village rather then crave acceptance.
              Maybe it won't have hookers and blackjack, but I guarantee they'll be happier between the like-minded them. That is, unless they are actually drama queen type themselves, everything they do is just posing, fakery or connery. If the latter, I have this violin which I believe is the smallest in the world.

              Like atheists, free thinkers, political dissidents and the other undesirable deviants of society at various points in history, you will learn to expel them in defense of the system, you will justify how it is necessary and you will be unrepentant about it.
              ... That's the brand of Totalitarianism to come, the very people it crushes under its boots are also its most fervent supporters...

              Look, every N-dimensional body with N>0 has a fringe. What that body does with its fringe, include it as a closed set or expels it as an opened set, will not make the fringe modify its nature - it will still be a fringe. The sooner the fringe accepts itself as it is an finds a way to deal with its own nature, the better.
              The sooner the body decides if it wants to embrace its fringe and become closed or adopt a suicidal attitude of expelling the fringe (and thus expose another fringe. Rinse and repeat?), the better too.
              Any situation of undecided status between the main body and its fringe is a compromising compromise, a lose-lose situation.

        • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Wednesday January 29 2020, @08:45PM

          by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Wednesday January 29 2020, @08:45PM (#950833) Journal

          "Unlicensed programmers?" Since when do you need to have a license to write code? If it compiles and runs, ok; if it doesn't, sucks to be you. It should be a meritocracy, but judging by the shit out there, it sure ain't. But no license required.

          Who would even issue such a hypothetical "license"? And how would they enforce it?

          It's not like current licensing bodies for doctors, drugs, teachers, etc. keep the incompetent out. Though it would be nice to have politicians have an indepent IQ test to assure they're at least as intelligent as the average voter, and ongoing dementia testing to make sure they're actually mentally competent.

          --
          SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Arik on Wednesday January 29 2020, @01:07PM (4 children)

      by Arik (4543) on Wednesday January 29 2020, @01:07PM (#950602) Journal
      Our government looks at China with envy.
      --
      If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
      • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday January 29 2020, @07:39PM (3 children)

        by DeathMonkey (1380) on Wednesday January 29 2020, @07:39PM (#950796) Journal

        You seem to be advocating for the removal of the very protections that this article about, though. How does making it easier to outlaw a platform help prevent us from becoming China?

        • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Wednesday January 29 2020, @09:25PM (1 child)

          by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Wednesday January 29 2020, @09:25PM (#950852) Journal

          Well, if platforms are outlawed, only outlaws will have platforms .... or something ...

          And there's always mesh networks. Shut down the internet for a couple of weeks and watch a thousand nodes light up.

          --
          SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 30 2020, @12:33AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 30 2020, @12:33AM (#950921)

            Shut down the internet for a couple of weeks and watch a thousand nodes light up.

            God Emperor Trump will smash you and your puny network [soylentnews.org]

        • (Score: 2) by Arik on Thursday January 30 2020, @05:13AM

          by Arik (4543) on Thursday January 30 2020, @05:13AM (#951040) Journal
          Here's what's going on.

          Our government can't regulate the internet like China does, because of the First Amendment. It's still too big a hurdle for them to overcome in the courts, for now at least.

          So what they are doing is regulating it indirectly, through these big corporations. It's given them immunity, predicated on them being common carriers, but when we ask them to act as common carriers, they go 'oh, we're a private platform.'

          I'm just saying they should have to choose. If they want to be a private platform that imposes whatever rules it wants and enforces them at a whim, then they shouldn't be getting any special immunity to the laws everyone else has to live under. If they want to keep the immunity, that's fine, but they need to commit to acting in a manner consistent with it.

          To put it another way, right now the incentives are all lined up in favor of China. US Companies drool at the Chinese market, they're inclined to bow and scrap and do anything the CCP wants as a result. And there's essentially no downside for doing so - because they're effectively above the law in the US we have no influence on them. Again, they should have to make a choice. If they want to act like *American* companies then they can keep the exemption, if they prefer to cater to the CCP then they should have to give that up and register as foreign agents. Clear?
          --
          If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
    • (Score: 2) by jmichaelhudsondotnet on Wednesday January 29 2020, @02:44PM (2 children)

      by jmichaelhudsondotnet (8122) on Wednesday January 29 2020, @02:44PM (#950638) Journal

      I wrote this just for people like you:

      jmichaelhudson.net/important-definitions
      jmicahelhudson.net/my-memes

      Especially,

      https://archive.is/ws6XQ [archive.is]

      And yes, we are now clearly dealing with full on totalitarianism, and anyone who doesn't want that better be ready to kick trump out even if it means shutting The Whole Thing down if he won't go. They are preparing for that, likely with death squads, as we speak. There are probably 10k or more agents loyal to that plan in the united states as we speak thanks to

      https://archive.ph/cVZBQ [archive.ph]
      https://archive.is/EoIML [archive.is]

      What if we didn't just have to accept this as fact? What if our police and military protected us rather than epsteined? What if all foreign spies were not allowed rather than exceptions being made for countriers who steal military secrets?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @04:45PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @04:45PM (#950706)

        >Trump
        You do realize there is resistance to Trump right? You think this single man is in control of all the government departments, all the education administrators, all the bureaucrats and all the think tanks? He is not the totalitarian you are looking for, he is merely a tree in the forest.

        Do you think Big Brother has enough resources to have jackbooted police patrolling every corner of the street looking for wrongthink? Do you think it has the power to erase all wrongthink from each and every person's mind? Your idea of totalitarianism is so wrong that you'll never see it when it comes. Instead of a police state, you'll police yourselves for wrongthink, Big Brother needs those resources elsewhere, like distracting you with pointless bread and circus drama so you'll support it voluntarily. Step outside of the bubble and you'll be ostracized by both red and blue ritual worshipers at the same time.

        • (Score: 2) by Gaaark on Wednesday January 29 2020, @09:48PM

          by Gaaark (41) on Wednesday January 29 2020, @09:48PM (#950863) Journal

          "You do realize there is resistance to Trump right?"

          With all the lies he tells and all his bullying and how big a doof he is on the international scene: I thought he'd have been out already!

          I was agreeable to #NeverHillary, but Trump? Man...why is he NOT GONE?

          --
          --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @03:03PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @03:03PM (#950649)

      Russia did well enough with Samizdat. Mostly.

      Just sayin' the truth will still be out there.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @03:22PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @03:22PM (#950658)

        True dat.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @10:29PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @10:29PM (#950888)

      "Treason doth never prosper, what's the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it Treason"

        - John Harrington

(1) 2