SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
New Zealand Mobile Carriers Block 8chan, 4chan, and LiveLeak
Submitted via IRC for chromas
New Zealand Mobile Carriers Block 8chan, 4chan, and LiveLeak
Following the Friday mass shooting in Christchurch, New Zealand, multiple internet service providers (ISP) in the country have blocked access to websites that distribute gruesome content from the incident.
[...] At least three internet companies operating in New Zealand have made this decision voluntarily and enforce it on a temporary basis against sites that still publish the sensitive materials. Spark NZ, Vodafone NZ, and Vocus NZ agreed to work together to identify and block access at DNS level to such online locations. 8chan and 4chan are currently unavailable to New Zealanders trying to load them through a connection from the three telcos. At the moment, visitors trying to get to these forums through Spark NZ, Vodafone NZ and Vocus NZ see the message "The URL has been blocked for security reasons."
Some users reported that LiveLeak video-sharing platform was also blocked in the region, along with other websites, including file-sharing service Mega. The block is not permanent, though. As soon as the horrific content from the Christchurch incident originating from the terrorists is removed, access to the website is reestablished.
The Dark Night of Censorship falls on New Zealand
Everybody keeps waiting for the dystopia to arrive, well wait no more for it has made an appearance in New Zealand. Zero Hedge reports that New Zealand is dropping the hammer on all discussion about the recent shooting. The list is growing and will almost certainly be larger by the time this story goes live.
Current banned sites seem to be: Dissenter.com (the new service from Gab yet gab.com is still reported as available.... for now), "all" of the "chans" are banned, and Zerohedge itself is now banned.
Subscribers who ask their ISP are reporting being told sites will stay banned until they become "censorship compliant." Sites not banned: Facebook.com, which live streamed the attack, and Twitter.com, which hosted the original link to the shooter's "manifesto." Guess they are "censorship compliant."
Suppression of Christchurch shooting video
After Christchurch, Reddit bans communities infamous for sharing graphic videos of death
In the aftermath of the tragic mosque massacre that claimed 49 lives in Christchurch, New Zealand, tech companies scrambled to purge their platforms of promotional materials that the shooter left behind. As most of the internet is now unfortunately aware, the event was broadcast live on Facebook, making it one of the most horrific incidents of violence to spread through online communities in realtime.
As Twitter users cautioned others from sharing the extraordinarily graphic video, some Reddit users actively sought the video and knew exactly where to look. The infamous subreddit r/watchpeopledie was quarantined (making it unsearchable) in September 2018 but until today remained active for anyone to visit directly. The subreddit has a long history of sharing extremely graphic videos following tragic events and acts of violence, like the 2018 murder of two female tourists in Morocco.
[...] The subreddit remained active until some time late Friday morning Pacific Time, when Reddit banned the controversial community.
How 'hashing' could stop violent videos from spreading
Some experts say tech companies should more broadly adopt a technology they're already using to combat child pornography and copyright violations to more quickly stop the spread of these types of videos.
[...] Facebook (FB) says it took down the livestream "quickly," but hours later, re-uploads of it were still circulating on the site. Twitter suspended the original account in question and is working to remove other versions on the platform. YouTube said it is utilizing "technology and human resources" to remove content that violates their policies.
Technologists say digital hashing, which has existed for more than a decade, could be better used to prevent the re-upload of videos. Hashing wouldn't have been able to catch the original live video of the attacks, but it could stop re-uploaded copies from spreading.
Social media platforms were used like lethal weapons in New Zealand. That must change now.
Editorial judgment, often flawed, is not only possible. It's necessary.
The scale and speed of the digital world obviously complicates that immensely. But saying, in essence, "we can't help it" and "that's not our job" are not acceptable answers.
Friday's massacre should force the major platforms — which are really media companies, though they don't want to admit it — to get serious.
After New Zealand Attacks, Muslim-Americans Call For Action Against Rising Bigotry
"The New Zealand shooter was able to livestream a 17-minute video of his murderous rampage that continues to spread like wildfire online. This is flatly unacceptable. Tech companies must take all steps possible to prevent something like this from happening again," Khera said.
Previously: 49 Dead in Christchurch, New Zealand Terror Attack
Original Submission #1 Original Submission #2 Original Submission #3 Original Submission #4
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 17 2019, @02:31PM (26 children)
These Nazi assholes always ruin it for everyone. You can't have good things.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 17 2019, @03:57PM (13 children)
Naah. Well, I mean, yeah. So naah yeah. Fascism arises towards the end of capitalism's curve of development [marxists.org]. It's just something that happens and is inherent to capitalism.
The ruling class has been expressing increasing interest in censoring the internet under the pretense of "fake news"--the formation MiniTru. They've also taken an interesting strategy. There are two proposals for fascism on the table this time. There's the oldie but goodie, white supremacism. Then there's this interesting pseudo-feminist take on white supremacism that has pseudo-left cover from intersectional theory. It divides nicely along gender lines, which is a natural 50/50 spit (great for keeping the working class distracted while austerity marches on). Maybe if it's the pseudo-feminists it's for the best. Sorry guys lol! However, if pseudo-feminist fascism, I'm worried about counterrevolution against second wave feminism, which is something I very much like. It's complex.
The point is, look for the banhammer to evolve beyond deplatforming to using government authority to take websites offline.
We need distributed social networking that does not rely on DNS to get around this. Bittorrent is a good protocol for distributing large media like video. I'm grabbing the video for permaseed now, and make sure to get a fresh copy from your friendly local pirate bay, yarr.
There's been a call on this board for mesh networking. Is the BATMAN protocol usable? Crypto nerds will see a need for steganography.
Now, authentic socialism and working class struggle is the only way to combat fascism. Think about the Freikorp's murder of Luxemburg and Liebknecht. (There was also a component here of isolating Bolshevik Russia and containing permanent revolution in order to enable the rise of Stalin or somebody like him.) I think the ruling class knows very well that Marx and Trotsky offer correct theory. They're not idiots. Whether an authentic socialist movement along Trotskyist lines emerges, perhaps incorporating something from the anarchists (think mutualism instead of anarcho-capitalism, because anarcho-capitalists are incels, but unfortunately Proudhon was an incel as well), we'll see, but it will need alternatives to centralized services to succeed.
So pirates (yarr!) may be an important component of struggle against the rise of fascism. Otherwise, have fun with Ingsoc and the anti-sex league. (lol incels, but hopefully this comment gives some idea of the social forces that create the incel phenomenon)
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 17 2019, @04:49PM (11 children)
I suspect that we can all agree that censorship is bad. However, it's not only far from unique to capitalism - in fact, capitalist societies have had the most liberal attitude to civil liberties of any large-scale society yet. Go ahead, check out the laws of Rome, or China (pick any dynasty), or Russia, or mercantilist England for that matter.
So if we're going by trend, "authentic socialism" which basically involves, at a minimum, a dirigiste approach if not outright centralisation of ownership, would be a clear loss to freedom of speech, or damn near anything else.
As for the idea of the "ruling class" (whatever that means this week) knowing that Marx and Trotsky offer "correct theory" there's a hell of a lot that is demonstrably wrong in both even if you ignore the infatuation with Hegelian history. (Start with the labour theory of value, carry on with their assumptions about international and monetary economics that were artifacts, at best, of their time.)
Another interesting point, given that you bring up post-WWI Germany, is that a lot of the Freikorps were working class folks who wanted absolutely nothing to do with communism in any form, and joined their militia (what a Freikorps was, in essence) for the purpose of opposing it. But I suppose that you'd argue that their working class nature wasn't authentic because of something about opposing the socialist movement... who knows.
Try again. This time, go into specifics about what constitution you'd apply that actually guarantees civil liberties, otherwise save your time.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 17 2019, @05:55PM (10 children)
You're ignoring the curve of development. In the first half of capitalism, we get civil liberties. We see amazing things happen like mass literacy. We see the women's liberation struggles and ethnic minority struggles (such as the civil rights movement in the USA). Capitalism gives everyone a roughly equal footing (during its first half) to pursue the cultivation of liberty and justice according to democratic principles.
The latter half of capitalism is another story.
...because that kind of militia is fascist by nature. It protects the interests of the bourgeoisie, not the interests of working class people. Fascism is also a working class movement, as you noted. It's quite an interesting phenomenon because we see how working class people can be convinced that they are temporarily embarrassed billionaries, and then they will form militias that will be eventually incorporated into the state apparatus of fascism, such as the Sturmabteilung and Schutzstaffel.
If you're worried about civil liberties, worry about fascist militias.
There is no way for a piece of paper to guarantee civil liberties. So here's the thing. It comes down to the political orientation of the working class. Whose interests do they defend? Do they defend the ruling class that gets them into disastrous wars (such as WWI) with disastrous consequences (reparation) which will be placed upon the backs of the workers? Or will they form worker's militias as Trotsky proposed that defend the interests of the working class?
If you want a better term for ruling class, try liberal elites. Liberalism = capitalism. Neoliberalism = near anarcho-capitalism/libertarian capitalism.
That being said, a written constitution is not just a good idea but necessary. It would need to include aspects of direct democracy and also the same guarantees of free speech and due process (no Stalin show trials) as is found in capitalist constitutions. Also add in guarantees like the Second Amendment so that the working class is armed (history shows we cannot rely on paper). We need new legal concepts of property. Capital would not be personal or real property. There is also room for delineation of major means of production and minor means of production. Minor means of production is where we find innovation, and so private ownership makes some degree of sense here. Money remains to facilitate economic exchange.
We already see the division of the means of production between major and minor. The major capitalist interests like for example Alphabet DBA Google snap up minor capitalist interests (start-ups), which is where the real innovation happens. The "angel investor" would become the working class itself, democratically selecting which start-ups to fund and grow, until their product or service is ready for mainstream adoption into or as a major means of production. We could use crowdfunding (provided the working class has democratic control of the wealth it produces) as the means of this democratic angel investing.
For the major means of production, we would move away from the welfare/"social safety net" model, because strong control over major means of production by the workers themselves would guarantee that the workers are compensated on the basis of the value they generate instead of on the basis of a labor market. The labor market is inherently a monopsony. Monopsony and monopoly are where the exchange theory of value breaks down. The real value of a worker is the wealth he generates for society. Socialism and anarchism say that the worker owns the wealth that he produces, as opposed to capitalism which says that the PHBs own the wealth the worker creates.
Looking at the hierarchy of PHBs with the CxOs at the top gobbling up the majority of the wealth (objectively speaking) produced by the workers, sufficiently advanced capitalism is indistinguishable from Stalin's dictatorship of the bureaucracy.
Old Marshal "oh so Brainy" had some thoughts on the labor theory of value [replacecapitalism.com], however what he proposes there seems too Utopian. (Project Australia just waiting for the AIs that are in charge to decide to take control of everyone with a vertibrain headcrab to form a zombie army, but that's brainy futurists for you.) In general, command economies suck. That is where we must consider anarchist mutualism.
Criticisms?
The ruling class is easy to identify. Look for net worth in the billions. For correct theory, I'm looking at predictive capability. Trotskyism (with Hegelian dialectic stood right-way up) seems to offer credible predictions. What theory of history do you propose that will be more correct?
(Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Sunday March 17 2019, @06:10PM (9 children)
Playing the game, I see. Who has a better "curve of development"? It sure isn't Marxism.
I see this all the time. Democratic capitalism isn't perfect (with some of the imperfections being purely imaginary, such as your concern about it sliding into Fascism) - so we must implement an even worse sort of economic and political system in order to forestall. How about instead shifting back to the first half of capitalism? You already granted it was pretty good.
The rest is disconnected from reality, such as:
No, that's not a better term, because they're not the same thing.
Neither is true.
What is that wealth worth to you? And it's quite distinguishable from Stalin's dictatorship of the proletariat because you don't have to play that game. For example, in the US tens of millions of people get along just fine without PHBs or CxOs.
Or capitalism for an example that we all know works because it's worked really well for a few centuries now.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Sunday March 17 2019, @06:28PM (4 children)
[blockquote]How about instead shifting back to the first half of capitalism?[/blockquote]
How do you get there when the winners in the latter half control the government, money, and the physical means to keep it that way?
(Score: 2, Funny) by khallow on Sunday March 17 2019, @06:45PM (3 children)
First, take power away from government. Second, encourage business creation and competition. Third, get rid of most of the entitlements that have been used to bribe voters to go along with this.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 17 2019, @06:49PM (1 child)
1. send all power to the wealthy corporations
2. regulate corporate interests to encourage business creation and competition (directly conflicts with #1)
3. strawman your way to victory!
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Sunday March 17 2019, @07:30PM
Remember the last AC whiner was complaining that wealthy corporations were controlling the government? Well, without the vast power, there's far less danger from them controlling it (though I don't buy that control goes in that direction).
It doesn't take a lot of government power to do that. Contrary to the narrative, corporations aren't that powerful.
Finally, it's worth remembering the role that entitlements have in vote buying. That's how governments, not corporations, get people to go along with the state of affairs. For example, in the US, entitlements suck up more than half the money that the federal government runs through their fingers. So if one wants to implement fiscal responsibility, one has to touch on near taboo subjects like Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid.
My view is that corrupt governments are like the Mafia. Everyone involved with them are bought, be they business or citizen. And what value you get out of that relationship depends on how valuable you are to the power brokers. A large business is going to more valuable than some arbitrary citizen. But one can tell which way the power runs when the inevitable conflicts come out. US intelligence agencies harmed US business without consequence. Law makers throw up arbitrary costs whenever they feel like, despite the contributions of business, such as Sarbones-Oxley [wikipedia.org], which is costly for business, but it's great theater to use on US voters.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Sunday March 17 2019, @07:39PM
take power away from government.
Government is Wall Street's muscle. Do you have a specific process in mind?
get rid of most of the entitlements that have been used to bribe voters to go along with this.
Yes, we have to cut back service and raise the fare to increase ridership. Very logical thinking there! Victory is already yours, Mr. President
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 18 2019, @12:45AM (3 children)
To quote a small print very often seen in capitalism: "Past results are not an indication of future outcomes". In other words, the quoted is not recognized as true even by the very capitalism you try to sell as infallible.
Git your head out of your ass, khallow.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 18 2019, @01:11AM (2 children)
I take it you don't understand why that statement exists. Suppose there are ten possible binary choices about the future. One way to appear prescient is to make 1024 guesses, exhausting every possible outcome and then publicizing only the one that you got fully right. But that, of course, doesn't mean that you have a clue about any predictions, including the ones you just made. Just because you made a successful prediction doesn't mean you'll succeed in the future.
A similar phenomena occurs with investment funds. Some get lucky and happen to profit well above average for a short period of time not due to any skill or foresight on the part of the fund managers. In fact, you can usually find these merely by looking for the funds that overperform for a couple of years! They then have a strong tendency to underperform for years after that (in large part due to new investors chasing after those high returns and dumping money into the fund that ends up invested poorly). That's where the term comes form.
When something works for centuries, it's way beyond the saying.
Back at you on that. It's amazing how people can derp on about the failure of capitalism while ignoring what it's done.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 18 2019, @06:53AM (1 child)
And this is supposed to demonstrate that capitalism will always guarantee the freedoms and wellbeing of the wage slaves.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 18 2019, @02:46PM
No, my previous post was meant to rebut an saying which was inappropriately applied.
"Guarantee" is an odd word to use here. Most of those capitalist systems are also constitutional democracies which have explicit written guarantees for the freedom and wellbeing of their citizens at the most basic levels. Been there. Done that.
So it sounds to me like you're thinking the present guarantees won't be fulfilled. Then what's the point of making more guarantees when you are already discounting the strongest possible present guarantees? No one can guarantee better at present than things like the US Bill of Rights.
That means instead we need to look at the dynamics of capitalist systems and how they help or hinder. Here, there is a considerable synergy between Capitalism and Democracy. Namely, people are empowered to do big things and own those big things without usually requiring the involvement or approval of a government beyond a basic, is-it-going-to-kill-people consideration. There's the centuries of bettering the human condition (that includes the above "wage slaves"). There's the natural division of power between business and government.
And a "wage slave" is not a slave, but someone with a huge amount of freedom who happens to work.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 17 2019, @06:08PM
From the Tarrant manifesto:
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 17 2019, @04:06PM
Yeah fuck those socialists!
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 17 2019, @04:25PM
If your 'rights' are conditional on the citizenry being well behaved then they aren't rights.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 17 2019, @04:30PM (5 children)
Someone else did something evil, you are being punished for it, and you have failed to notice there are two evils here not one.
evil 1) the terrorist act
evil 2) collective punishment via removing your rights due to the actions of another
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 17 2019, @04:41PM (2 children)
whataboutism
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 17 2019, @04:50PM (1 child)
???
About what?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 17 2019, @06:07PM
slippery slope
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 18 2019, @06:02AM (1 child)
Taking away people's rights because criminals exist is wrong.
That isn't trolling, it's the basic premise of free societies.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 18 2019, @06:08AM
Took me a few minutes to realize I was the one getting trolled, and I nearly posted a sincere exhortation to kys, which would have been a first.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 17 2019, @09:12PM (1 child)
"These Nazi assholes always ruin it for everyone."
Which ones? The Nazis banning Internet videos? Or the ones shooting up places of worship? Seriously, which Nazis are you referring to?
"You can't have good things."
Indeed.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Monday March 18 2019, @01:02PM
Yes
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 17 2019, @11:41PM (1 child)
The First Amendment invites you to suck a dick.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 18 2019, @12:50AM
And do a good job too, motherfucker!
I'm so glad to hear that the United States has annexed New Zealand and imposed the U.S. Constitution on it. Oh, wait.
I mean, I can understand if you don't want to read TFA. Or even TFS. But you apparently didn't even bother to read the *headline*.
Geez Louise!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 17 2019, @03:05PM (19 children)
Unless, of course, we develop ad hoc networks to circumvent the ISP. Only technology can protect us from popular fascism (as if there's another kind).
(Score: 3, Interesting) by jmorris on Sunday March 17 2019, @11:18PM (15 children)
Those tech / crypto fixes only work against governments that are still somewhat free and responsive to public outrage. Try using a VPN to bypass the Great Firewall of China. It might even work, but eventually they notice and show up at your door and few need repeated lessons.
No, if we don't take a stand against censorship and let this thing get rolling we will all lose. Remember gang, if you aren't taking a stand defending speech you abhor you are not defending free speech. If you only support speech you basically agree with you are just rooting for your team. Not that there is anything for rooting for your faction, just don't confuse it with defending free speech. Either everybody gets to talk to somebody gets empowered to decide who has to STFU.
I didn't bother grabbing a copy of the video in this case, murder porn ain't my fetish. But I did grab the manifesto so I could read it for myself instead of depending on the lying liars in the MSM to tell me what was in it. If it gets suppressed hard enough I'll have to help seed it. Probably the video as well. :(
(Score: 5, Interesting) by takyon on Monday March 18 2019, @12:12AM (6 children)
If you apply the China difficulty level to the entire Internet, then free speech will lose big fast. You might have to resort to things like steganography and sneakernets.
One thing to consider is that the Great Firewall of China is more about censoring Chinese people who are talking to each other than preventing Chinese people from reaching BBC, YouTube, Facebook, etc. Only a small percentage of the population understands English. Granted, there might be a high concentration of anti-CCP individuals in that group. But the real action is on sites like Sina Weibo [wikipedia.org], which have hundreds of millions of users. People use code phrases to talk to each other, but like Winnie the Pooh [theguardian.com], they will eventually get censored.
You could have meshnets to facilitate local communication, with some nodes capable of linking to the outside world. But those networks have their own problems. A malicious node could result in a visit from the police.
Maybe we need neutrino routers. Your "address" would be your precise global coordinates, down to the nearest centimeter. If the other router isn't positioned in the exact location and does not respond to a ping attempt, then the router can send neutrinos in a circle/grid around the pinpointed location to cover a few square meters, until it finds the other router and a link is established. Interception could be possible depending on the angle, but unlikely, and you could use an onion routing scheme to prevent communicating in the same direction too often.
Ok, with the neutrino fantasy out of the way, I think we can conclude that the fight for free speech is going to be unrewarding going forward. Bit by bit, it is being chipped away at, suppressed, and censorship excused. Technology could hurt free speech (surveillance, machine learning) more than it helps.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Monday March 18 2019, @09:59AM (2 children)
Someone published a paper about using neutrinos to communicate with submarines (presumably the sort that sit on the bottom of the ocean somewhere and wait for nuclear war).
https://arxiv.org/abs/0909.4554 [arxiv.org]
You need a large instrumented body of water to act as a detector and a powerful neutrino source. It is hard to collimate neutrinos so the source needs to be very directional, probably using decay of high energy muons - or you leak data.
(Score: 4, Informative) by takyon on Monday March 18 2019, @11:46AM (1 child)
Neutrino communication was achieved in 2012:
https://physicsworld.com/a/neutrino-based-communication-is-a-first/ [physicsworld.com]
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/message-encoded-in-neutrino-beam-transmitted-through-solid-rock/ [scientificamerican.com]
Not very practical at this point, but I would be surprised if it couldn't be scaled down in physical size eventually.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Monday March 18 2019, @12:48PM
I didn't know this, thanks for the post.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 18 2019, @05:31PM (1 child)
good point. so this would mean that if western governments were smart they would fund translation of certain websites to mandarin.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday March 18 2019, @07:29PM
That probably also doesn't matter.
https://www.voachinese.com/ [voachinese.com]
https://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2012/0427/Why-Voice-of-America-is-losing-to-voice-of-communist-China-at-home-and-abroad [csmonitor.com]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alhurra [wikipedia.org]
Foreign services get blocked or crowded out by domestic ones. Even if Google were to bend the knee and create a censored search engine, would they ever surpass Baidu?
You might target a small amount of Chinese VPN/Tor users, who could be getting caught and shut down individually over time. And even if the government were to fall and freedom of speech and politics came to China, whomever is in control of local media outlets may still have the upper hand.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 24 2019, @10:14PM
Even China can be circumvented if you run narrowband point to point network connections all over, and have hubs inside the firewall set up that can provide access out.
Where the problem comes in is having the money to do this, and enough different techniques to ensure they can't trace everyone from one or two people being made examples out of.
In order for this to be successful, you would need a combination of varying wifi frequencies, fiberoptic cabling (whether underground or through buildings/overhead wiring), invisible lasers with guilds, etc. China in particular has the manufacturing capability for all of these. A few third shifts in the right factories could provide this equipment. The problem is we are rapidly approaching the point where citizens of *ALL* nations need this, just to have a chance at unfettered discourse and education beyond the local propaganda, be it national, special interest, or corporate.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Monday March 18 2019, @01:08AM (7 children)
jmorris is not dead! And here I thought that some twister had dropped a house on him. Clue for the illiterate: "Yellow Brick Road" =the gold standard, and "Cowardly Lion"= William Jennings Bryant. Notice there are no fascists or libertarians in "The Wizard of Oz", just socialist Munchkins and Flying Monkeys. But clearly now we are through the Looking Glass and into "The Mass Murderer of Auz". Curious jmorris would resurrect just for this. . .
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jmorris on Monday March 18 2019, @01:50AM (6 children)
Was nursing a long upgrade process through the night when this one was breaking so I submitted it. Banning Zerohedge? On what reality does that even make sense? The Tylers are crazy and anyone investing based on ANYTHING there deserves what they get, but not banworthy.. The world is losing its ever lovin' mind.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by aristarchus on Monday March 18 2019, @03:02AM (5 children)
At least you are not dead, jmorris, as you would be if you were Jewish or Muslim in some recent circumstances. But the entire "free speech" and "censorship" is the same old alt-right canard, and it is getting old. The point about videos like this, is that they are porn. Not rather innocent porn, but porn involving death, and not just acted death, but real death, which makes it attractive to a certain kind of real sick alt-righter. This is what was called "snuff-films", back in the day. They were illegal then, and illegal now, since actually killing someone to make your video certainly is a crime. My Gawd, they run the disclaimer at the end saying no animals were harmed! Earlier, in the age of print, there used to be all kinds of disreputable publications titled "True Detective" or "Real Crime", and the persons buying such publications had a somewhat unnatural fixation on the fact that they were reading about violence that had really happened.
This is why we need to suppress this video. On the one hand, having it viewed is evidently what the sick bastard wanted. No live streaming for murdering bastards, I always say. And secondly, anyone who wants to view this video is already a sick bastard, despite all the fine excuses given in this despicable thread on SoylentNews. No, they are titillated, aroused, entertained, and worse. So we must deny them their sick pleasures, since augmenting that will only lead to more actual video capture.
Sometimes I think that the "Black Mirror" episode, "White Bear" , was a dystopian view of penal institutions gone too far. But for someone like our shooter here, such a punishment might be appropriate. Having to relive the entire episode, over and over again, from the other side. Justice.
So, to sum up, jmorris, nice to know you are alive. But do not watch snuff videos, they are bad for you. Watch "White Bear" instead. On Netflix, I believe.
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 18 2019, @07:03AM (4 children)
Read his manifesto.
He is an eco-fascist. His favorite form of government is China's. He believes that capitalism and multiculturalism and immigration are all bad for the environment. Yes, seriously.
It kind of makes sense. People breed in poor countries, then upgrade to environmentally-unfriendly lifestyles when they move to rich countries. Also, if rich countries gain muslims, there will be more children per family.
So he wants the government to exert commie-style leftist control in order to save the environment. He likes how China ships people off to prison camps for not being Chinese enough.
(Score: 1, Troll) by aristarchus on Monday March 18 2019, @09:27AM (3 children)
Nope, not going to read his manifesto, not going to watch his video, not going to mention his name, or even what he did. Just want to say assault weapons need to be illegal, and right-wing nut-jobs need to be rounded up and given frontal lobotomies. Not because it will help, but just to fuck with their heads.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jmorris on Monday March 18 2019, @01:28PM (2 children)
This is why you should read the books before you burn them. You are helping this dude, he explicitly SAID he picked firearms vs explosives or a speeding vehicle, etc. to get the gun banners vs gun nuts fight heated back up. You are either having an emotional reaction or were a gun grabber before this event and are using a tragedy to emotionally manipulate others, since it changed absolutely nothing in the rational debate. Either way, it is YOU who need to stop whatever you are doing and rethink.
Do agree on neither of us needing to see that raw video, but it should be preserved because it will be useful to the right people. Example. At work we had recently an "active shooter training" event put on by the local law enforcement peeps. They actually showed some video of mass shootings, the stuff was security footage and officer bodycams since perps livestreaming is a new thing. They were showing where people did smart things and where they reacted badly, using it to teach what people should do to survive. They didn't show much of the really horrible parts, but they would have had to have the whole unedited video to take the clips out of.
Government employees do not, and shouldn't, have an absolute monopoly on analysis of these videos. Was seeing a lot of fairly insightful analysis over on gab by people who apparently (gab is almost like the chans when it comes to anonymity) could give it an expert eye. Again it seemed universally agreed that playing dead is a losing move, anything seems to beat that. Run away, charge the shooter, DO something. One victim charged and almost ended it, had somebody else followed his lead the body count would have been much lower.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 18 2019, @02:28PM (1 child)
Regarding the video: You've seen worse in video games and R-rated movies. The camera doesn't give enough detail to get truly gory. Only a couple times did I see blood splatter, and Hollywood spends lots of time and money to create equal effects for it's audiences. The only difference between this video, and Hollywood output, is that you know this is for reals.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 18 2019, @08:19PM
Found the snuff film fan! Probably prefers his kiddie-porn with actual children, instead of amine or really young looking actors, for the same reason.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 18 2019, @12:53AM (1 child)
There. FTFY.
Because once power gets well consolidated by the government and the corporatists support them, fascism gets pretty unpopular pretty fast for the little guy.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 18 2019, @03:00PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 19 2019, @03:55AM
What happens when P2P and VPN technology is illegal?
Oh no! A pedobear might use it! Ban it!
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 17 2019, @03:06PM (100 children)
I'm against violence and hatred but I'm also against censorship. The video is available on bittorrent. Get a VPN service for less than $4/month (recommend PIA), install the free BT client software 'Transmission' and use the following magnet link (or search pirate bay):
Link: Christchurch, NZ Mosque Shooting Full Video (mp4) [magnet]
The video is horrific and ugly but that might be the best reason for people to view it. After watching it, I no longer believe gun ownership should be a constitutional right.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by crafoo on Sunday March 17 2019, @03:15PM (17 children)
Please carefully consider your response and emotional reaction to the video. Put it in context with real data and with other shootings that happened within days of this one (Brazil for instance, just brown-on-brown people I know, you probably don't have the same emotional reaction). Please recognize that an emotional reaction to a single event is not a foundation to build multi-generational policy changes upon.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Sunday March 17 2019, @04:03PM
Good advice.
On the other hand, I feel the need to point out - Hollywood. Every week, millions of Americans troop down to the theater to watch something equally horrific. They suck it up like candy.
Yeah, I had to watch the video. It's really not any worse than you'll see in many video games, and in multitudes of movies. Not a helluva lot of screaming, you can't really see faces, you certainly don't smell the gunpowder and other smells associated with a murder scene.
An aspect of the video that will probably escape nearly everyone. After the shooting ends, he's back in his car, he's doing some self-evaluation. Words to the effect "I left at least one full magazine back there." He neglects to mention that he left a perfectly good weapon lying on the ground, behind the car, before he drove away. My own critique of his performance includes the observation that he repeatedly fires into dead bodies. He probably thinks that he's cool and collected, but he's high, and riding the gunfire.
Noting that he drove over the body of the girl/woman he shot at the end: was that to further express his contempt for Muslims, or he was letting the excitement control him, and he had to escape?
I expect that if he had met something, anything, unexpected, he couldn't have pulled this off. He's "in control", but just barely. The story is that at the second mosque, he was thrown off by just one ballsy man who confronted him. An UNARMED ballsy man.
It's just too bad that he didn't meet an armed ballsy man as he approached the first mosque.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 17 2019, @09:45PM (3 children)
About a week ago, muslims killed 40 christians in Nigeria. All involved were brown people.
That didn't even make the news in the USA, for good reason: leftists have low expectations for muslims and brown people. Leftists don't see much guilt, kind of like not seeing the guilt in a wolf that attacks a cow.
Christian whites though... they are always fully culpable. They are guilty even for things done by long-dead people who look vaguely similar.
The fact that thousands upon thousands of Christians are killed for their faith each year by muslims just doesn't matter. It doesn't count. Likewise, when black people shoot each other in the USA it is always the fault of oppression (by whites) or something like that. Brown people and muslims are inherently blameless because, to the leftist, they are incapable of being civilized.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by takyon on Sunday March 17 2019, @10:11PM
I think you at least have to admit that the NZ shooter's presentation was much better than the other massacre you are talking about. Telegraphed in advance on 8chan, streamed on Facebook Live, full of meme references, including a playlist of meme-y music during the car ride and actual massacre, and an accompanying manifesto that was apparently emailed to the NZ Prime Minister's office several minutes before the shooting started. All of it adds up to an extremely newsworthy event. Referencing [nytimes.com] Pewdiepie [rollingstone.com] was a savvy attention-seeking move that forced Pewdiepie [twitter.com] to denounce the shooting in a tweet (his account has 17 million followers), and is continuing to produce bonus headlines [mirror.co.uk].
Plenty of people are going to ignore killings in Africa, even though Nigeria isn't exactly a hellhole (it's the world's 20th largest economy, ahead of South Africa, and is expected to grow further). But brown people dying in Africa is business as usual. You don't have to be a "leftist" to not care. In the clickbait-driven news culture, do people click on "40 Christians killed in attacks in Nigeria" or even "Female Teen Bombers Kill 40 in Nigeria"?
Christian killers in Africa could try to live stream their own massacres, maybe add a spicy song and dance rape/torture routine, or whatever, but drawing global attention to themselves may not be a good thing for their cause.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 17 2019, @11:13PM
Because they should know better, yes.
Otherwise, their claim of being somehow superior is rubbish.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 18 2019, @03:39PM
Link please.
What is being repeated around here is this is a direct attack on islam for which there must be retribution paid in blood
(Score: 5, Insightful) by jmorris on Sunday March 17 2019, @11:25PM (2 children)
Exactly. The media love to create a stampede.
For context, accoding to stats collected by thereligionofpeace.com, in the last thirty days there were 112 attacks by Muslims that killed 859 people and injured another 844. How many of those were your even aware of? Yet this one man bits dog story has people supposedly ready to discard their RTKBA? Try thinking, it will hurt like Hell at first but with time one gets better at it and it gets easier.
Or consider that the Pulse nightclub shooting was about as deadly. Other than a perfunctory call for gun control and the ritual warning against an anti-muslim backlash, there was no major reaction. No major calls for censorship, no denouncing of the entire demographic the shooter was a member of, etc.
The media lies, as much by omission as commission and the most vile is in their selective emphasis on which stories can be woven into The Narrative and which discarded as not useful.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 18 2019, @05:50AM
You don't say... Really? Was there any snuff-movie released during or after the incident to censor?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 19 2019, @03:59AM
https://clarionproject.org/isis-beheads-50-yazidi-sex-slaves-as-parting-gift/ [clarionproject.org]
50 people killed by muslims in February because they were not muslim and were inconvenient. This didn't even make the news here. Perhaps it should.
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Monday March 18 2019, @03:11AM (8 children)
This is what's fascinating about GP's reaction. We hear about gun deaths in the US every day (2,089 dead in the US in 2019 alone so far including 106 children aged 0-11, 60 mass shootings as at 18th March. Source [gunviolencearchive.org]). The problem is that the public have become inured to the constant stream of violence as currently presented. Something like this video helps to make it more 'real' and not just a bunch of numbers on the nightly news.
I agree that a single event should not usually trigger drastic changes to policy, however IMO this particular event may be a catalyst that can help to bring a very large (at least in the US) number of events into focus to help guide policy.
In New Zealand's case, there will almost certainly be changes to laws. While it could be argued that this is an outlier event (I would agree), the changes could potentially stop a number of smaller events from happening, the same way that the gun restrictions in Australia brought in after the Port Arthur Massacre [wikipedia.org] resulted in zero mass shootings for the 23 years since.
(Score: 1) by The Vocal Minority on Monday March 18 2019, @02:39PM (3 children)
This is completely wrong, there have been many mass murders using firearms in Australia in the last 23 years. The most recent, the Osmington shooting, occurred last year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 18 2019, @03:43PM (1 child)
Most of those are under 10 people dead. Is it really a massacre?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 18 2019, @04:28PM
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Tuesday March 19 2019, @02:53AM
You are right and I am wrong.
Using the definition from the link I provided, a mass shooting occurs when there are at least 4 injured or dead. On that basis there have been more than zero mass shootings in Australia since April 1996. According to parent's link on Wikipedia, there have been 7 mass shootings (the other items on the list are other causes, such as stabbing, arson etc). 3 of those 7 were family violence, while the other 4 were non-family.
The general point I was making still stands though. Australia was experiencing a mass shooting of 5+ deaths every couple of years (non-family) up to Port Arthur. Since then it's been one every 6 or so years (non-family), with a maximum number of 3 people killed in those non-family mass shootings in the last 23 years. The frequency is way down and the body count is too.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 18 2019, @03:02PM (1 child)
Remind us again what the definition of a mass shooting is? Funny how people blather on about "mass shootings" while ignoring what words mean.
(Score: 2) by slinches on Monday March 18 2019, @06:39PM
The phrase "mass shooting" mean exactly what it says. Something with mass was shot.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 18 2019, @05:40PM (1 child)
let me explain something to you you stupid bitch. America is not fucking australia and the uk. we will kill all of you if you try to take our guns.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 19 2019, @12:38AM
Excuse me, your post is unclear, and the spittle obscures a lot. Are you Australian, or a Bloody Pom? And why do you not like America having intercourse with you?
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Sunday March 17 2019, @03:27PM (1 child)
Not in this case, but in others, the MAFIAA's Lawyers are possessed of Barratric Pressure.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 3, Funny) by TheGratefulNet on Sunday March 17 2019, @10:56PM
the MAFIAA's Lawyers are possessed of Barratric Pressure
can they tell when its going to rain, in advance?
(sounds like a useful feature to have)
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 17 2019, @03:45PM (56 children)
The Magic Gun Evaporation Fairy is worthwhile reading: https://medium.com/handwaving-freakoutery/the-magic-gun-evaporation-fairy-f12497990098 [medium.com]
And while the actions of this one individual are horrific, it's worth remembering that he's got nothing on the horror governments have inflicted on their own people throughout all history.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 17 2019, @04:01PM (54 children)
Addendum: all forms of power, including the newfangled capitalist form of power, which has no Bill of Rights to restrain it, the corporation. Corporation is the new government.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 17 2019, @04:04PM (8 children)
This makes no sense. Corporations are created by governments and act according to rules the governments set. Any problem with corporations is a problem with the government.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 17 2019, @04:09PM (3 children)
That formulation only works while government controls corporations -- it breaks down when the corporations buy the governments that created them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 17 2019, @04:13PM (2 children)
You mean immediately?
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday March 18 2019, @01:00AM (1 child)
Actually, at least in the US, not so much immediately. as history reminds us [c-span.org].
It's a shame no one reads Santayana any more. Or Kathleen Day [yale.edu] for that matter.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 18 2019, @07:27AM
Maybe because anyone who thinks the US has been in an era of free markets anytime in the recent past is delusional. There is literally no point to listening to anything else they say on the topic if it is based on a fallacy like that.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Sunday March 17 2019, @04:20PM
You're wagging the dog. Government is created by corporations to enforce contracts and "keep the peace" when territory is stolen and resources are rationed. They themselves write the charter.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 17 2019, @04:21PM (2 children)
Fair enough. However, consider that corporations control government at this stage of capitalism's development. So the mechanisms of real power become inverted. We see that governments that were formed according to enlightenment democratic principles are simply not, objectively speaking, democracies any more.
Quick duck search found this: The United States Is An Oligarchy, Not A Democracy [humansarefree.com], and here is the Gilens and Page paper: Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens [princeton.edu]. It's USA-centric, but the same social forces of The Accumulation of Capital [marxists.org] are working everywhere in advanced capitalist economies.
Another sign of the ascendancy of capital beyond governmental control is the harmonization of laws across advanced capitalist countries. There was TPP/TTIP/TISA, and now we see interest in importing the EU's Copyright Directive to the USA (was Warren who wanted this iirc).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 17 2019, @05:43PM
Corporations don't control the government... you keep wanting to make this meaningless distinction. It is all one big crony-socialist organization.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 18 2019, @04:41PM
The EU and the US exist in the first place because trade harmonization works well.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Sunday March 17 2019, @04:45PM (44 children)
Far from that. Corporations don't have trillions of dollars in captive revenue stream. But maybe you just think governments are the biggest, baddest corporations on the block?
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Sunday March 17 2019, @05:02PM (43 children)
Corporations don't have trillions of dollars in captive revenue stream.
Yes, they do. Their cash flow in the financial markets is like a rain forest canopy, and we get what trickles down. Yes, they hold trillions (much of it imaginary in the form of derivatives and other "notes"), "hidden" in government vaults and Wall Street, to keep it out of circulation. Finance is a cartel. "Corporations" (business) have always been the government. It can't be any other way.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 17 2019, @05:56PM (42 children)
Again, you miss the point. Governments have a bigger revenue stream than that. And you get what trickles down from the governments of the world too.
And government is a monopoly. We can talk about this all day.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Sunday March 17 2019, @06:08PM (7 children)
Governments have a bigger revenue stream than that.
Wrong again. Government spending is just over one fifth the total.
We can talk about this all day.
:-) You can. Once is enough for me...
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 17 2019, @06:30PM (6 children)
Those markets don't make up another fifth.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Sunday March 17 2019, @07:00PM (5 children)
Stock market capitalization is about 165% of the GDP. Maybe because it's not included in the GDP. Neat trick, huh? But it shouldn't be included since it produces nothing of value anyway.
*sigh* I promised I would stop...
Hey Rocky, watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat!
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 17 2019, @07:33PM (4 children)
As I noted, that's not very much.
Because it's not GDP. Neat trick huh?
And that's why.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Sunday March 17 2019, @07:45PM (3 children)
And yet, most our currency is stashed up there in that canopy, instead of producing useful, much needed work.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 17 2019, @09:05PM
Currency doesn't produce work... What kind of crazed economic theory are you subscribing to?
"Release" all that currency and what you'll get is price/asset inflation, then a lagged wage inflation.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 17 2019, @09:36PM (1 child)
Sorry, you can't buy much directly with APPL shares. You need to sell them first for currency, then buy what you want.
And currency is scale invariant. If the face value of US was suddenly increased or decreased by a factor of 100, it wouldn't change the economy. Work that costs $100 now, would cost $10k or $1 later, and still be just as much work as it is now. Adding or removing zeros from all the bills doesn't change a thing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 19 2019, @12:40AM
Best not to bring up things like facts and correct reasoning with khallow. It just makes him all the more crazy. In fact, best not to argue with him at all, it just makes him feel important.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Sunday March 17 2019, @06:22PM (33 children)
Ok twice!
And government is a monopoly.
Entirely subject to the whims of the voters. They make the government what it is. It is their reflection/projection to the world. We don't have that kind of power over corporations, unless we vote such power into law. The corporation is the government only because we let it happen, as a matter of convenience, and a belief in superstitious bullshit.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 17 2019, @06:35PM (32 children)
I'm reminded here of your journal article [soylentnews.org] about James Clapper. Guy lies to Congress about NSA spying and serves another three year to the end of Obama's administration without punishment. What was the "whim of the voters" there?
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Sunday March 17 2019, @06:48PM (31 children)
They let it pass. They're letting it all pass now. Or what, did something happen?
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Sunday March 17 2019, @07:39PM (30 children)
So what? Democracy isn't a car which responds instantly to my actions. For the US at the federal level, it's a car with 200 million drivers (the number of registered voters). The more power this vehicle acquires, the more power that unelected bureaucrats have over our lives. Because a 200 millionth share of the steering wheel isn't control.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Sunday March 17 2019, @07:43PM (26 children)
Take it on the campaign trail... Whatever, it's the system that people accept. There's nobody else to blame.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 3, Insightful) by khallow on Sunday March 17 2019, @09:39PM (25 children)
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Sunday March 17 2019, @10:43PM (5 children)
Meanwhile if a corporation does wrong, you can just not buy their stuff
We don't have that kind of clout in the marketplace. With our vote the playing field is level. We can change the government into anything we want to.
It's very hard to change anything.
Anything but your mind, and that's all that's needed.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 17 2019, @11:50PM (4 children)
Unless, of course, you buy stuff in the marketplace, then you do.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday March 18 2019, @01:31AM (3 children)
Really, man! It's easy! All ya gotta do is be rich... What's the big deal?
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 18 2019, @03:56AM (2 children)
Because only rich people buy stuff in markets?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 18 2019, @06:33AM (1 child)
Because only the rich people can afford to dispense themselves of bread, having cake as a fallback replacement, yes.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 18 2019, @02:34PM
Keep in mind that by that standard the great majority of the developed world is rich.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 18 2019, @06:21AM (2 children)
Who guarantees the non-existence of monopolies/oligopolies in the context of international conglomerates? That's your wild dream, khallow, ain't it? The world dominance of "economy" and none of them governments.
Like, suppose you have two retail chains in a small town in Niger... well, say, Texas; let's call them Democrats™ and Republicans™ to avoid any confusion with an existing brand. How is the poor IT admin buyer gonna be able chose what gallon of fresh milk to buy while still punishing any and both the retails for their behavior?
Git you head outta your ass, khallow.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 18 2019, @02:51PM (1 child)
Look for barrier to entry and competition. I'm not shy about having anti-monopoly laws either. And even in a oligopoly situation, you can choose to not buy from the worst offender.
True monopolies are rare and even in those cases, you can choose to buy less of what they're selling.
Vote third party.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 18 2019, @04:03PM
No third party for 100 miles around.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday March 18 2019, @06:29AM (15 children)
Oh, wow! Vote with you wallet, yes, of course, what a good idea.
Except the "customer is king" comes together with "the king is dead", has been replaced by "consumers". For already a decade or so.
Also, you don't make any difference when you are part of a captive market or if you wallet is empty. In these cases, your "wallet-vote" doesn't matter, your decision simply doesn't exist for them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 18 2019, @02:54PM (14 children)
I don't see that decade over here. Perhaps you should try living in my reality instead?
How much are your governments enforcing that captive market? It's common for people to complain about rent-seekers and such while ignoring who created those rent-seekers.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday March 18 2019, @03:57PM (13 children)
There you have it [soylentnews.org]
How is your govt responsible for enforcing that captive market in "airlines, cable, and internet services"?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 18 2019, @04:16PM (12 children)
(Score: 3, Touché) by c0lo on Monday March 18 2019, @05:01PM (11 children)
Oh, that's so cute an argument.
Like "just remember how it was when you stubbed your toe, stop complaining about the ticks. If you really don't like them, you have the freedom to switch to leeches anyway"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 18 2019, @05:24PM (10 children)
I'm concerned with the correctness not cuteness of the argument.
It's not like that. It's like someone saying "X is getting worse". Then person 2 notes that X was worse in the not-so-distant past. Meaning even if X is truly getting worse today (and it probably isn't in this case BTW), then there was some point in the intervening time when X greatly improved.
In the example I gave, internet services received a strong kick in the pants from the breakup of AT&T. It expedited landline based internet and opened up cell phone service. That in turn helped the market for cable - which also came about because of the rigid oligopoly on broadcast television. All that had global repercussions.
In addition, the US and Europe over the 1980s privatized most of the airlines and opened things up to considerable competition, which we still enjoy today. Speaking of the "captive markets" of airlines, cable, and internet services, ignores that most of us have better choices in those areas than we had in the past.
Moving on, not a one of those requires us to use a particular provider except in rare cases. There is no monopoly in those areas, unless you should happen to live in an area with a monopoly airline provider. I can't rule that out.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday March 18 2019, @05:33PM (9 children)
You're failing again to get the point (or just ignoring it): when all the players in industry treat you as something to be sucked dry, it doesn't matter what parasite you choose, your "vote with your wallet" is not effective.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 18 2019, @05:41PM (8 children)
So what? Business has been that mercenary for millennia. It's nothing new.
It's a known problem which we already know how to deal effectively with it. When they can't "suck me dry" because they're getting boycotted, they'll change their ways or go out of business.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday March 20 2019, @01:28AM (7 children)
"I can't afford to die. I owe my soul to the company store." [wikipedia.org]
You think it can't happen again? It only needs a bit of "diversification" from the current giant corporations, like branching from "public transport" into "catering" into "actually, you know, integrated food business", into "flying taxis and drones, like the "Amazon of transportation" [phys.org]... all with a predatory attitude [businessinsider.com] of driving out the competition by any means (even illegal [wikipedia.org], ask forgiveness, not permission [vox.com])
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday March 20 2019, @01:36PM (6 children)
Pay attention to how it happened in the first place -isolated environments with the whole society constructed by the business in the first place. And even back then, people had the option to just leave. What's ignored here is that even with the company store games (and the terrible health and safety environment of the mine), the coal mine was a great option as compared to what else was available back then for those miners.
And it only requires a little competition to never happen. Sorry, it's like hating on Muslims because some day they just might be homicidal or something.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday March 20 2019, @11:03PM (5 children)
If shit can happen, it will.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 21 2019, @04:31AM (4 children)
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday March 21 2019, @04:39AM (3 children)
Just a matter of time.
Because that state it's a "stable equilibrium point" (even if a local one) - once the system evolves in this state, it requires non-zero energy to extract it from there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 21 2019, @01:28PM (2 children)
That is an unfounded assertion. And in practice, it's just not hard to introduce competition, meaning this is not a stable equilibrium point. The "company store" phenomena happened because the company owned everything. That works when it's a coal mine which owns all the property in the first place and can keep out competitors. It has never worked anywhere else.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday March 21 2019, @02:44PM (1 child)
If Uber is going to succeed (slim chances given they aren't profitable after 8-9 year, they burnt around $80B already), their practices will guarantee the entire world is an "isolated place around a mine" (predatory pricing, lying to regulators, drive the competition into the ground, etc)
However, if Apple (or any other supra-national 800-pound gorilla of a corporation) would choose to "diversify aggressively Uber-style", with $245B cash at hand and a more focused "diversification", their chance of success is higher.
(we are at a point where there are corporations with revenues larger than effing big countries - e.g. Apple reported $256B revenue 2018, compared with $205B GDP for NZ. The gross Apple profit for 2018 - $101.839B - is higher than the GDP of at least 120 countries [wikipedia.org]. There will be a time when corporations will "buy whole countries" - making "company stores" of them)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 21 2019, @05:45PM
In addition to existing competitors like Lyft and taxi companies, they don't have the ability to block entry to the market. There's a huge difference between market dominance and a monopoly position. In the former, because other competitors exist and new ones could enter the market at any time, Uber is forced to price their product considerably lower than if they were the only game in town.
Assuming that cash is not an accounting fiction, we still have the problem that Apple doesn't magically know what they're doing. That cash can be squandered spectacularly instead - which incidentally is a common outcome of businesses diversifying in that way. And even if Apple buys out all the competition, more competition can then enter the market, devaluing Apple's market position.
While I speak of these in abstract terms, this routinely happens. In fact, the whole reason Uber grew so huge is because travelers rapidly shifted from existing cartel services to Uber. They can do that trick again, should Uber try to exploit them.
Not much point to buying a country, if you can't keep it. The inhabitants can just install a new government, if they don't like the old one. And sorry, New Zealand is not a big country.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Monday March 18 2019, @01:50PM (2 children)
This is the rational behind the globalist dream of a single government ("to make all wars cease" sure, wasn't it the reason for WWI?)
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Monday March 18 2019, @01:51PM
rationale even
Account abandoned.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 18 2019, @03:23PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 19 2019, @04:33AM
Are we going to clock up Maori deaths now?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 17 2019, @03:50PM
I find it surprising that something like this could actually change someones mind on the topic. It doesn't make much sense. Do you actually own any firearms, or is it something you never really cared about to begin with?
And also, this asshole said getting people to try to ban guns was one of his goals.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Sunday March 17 2019, @03:53PM (8 children)
The video is horrific and ugly but that might be the best reason for people to view it. After watching it, I no longer believe gun ownership should be a constitutional right.
When I see private companies deciding for me what I can or cannot watch on the internet, I'm beginning to believe gun ownership should be a constitutional duty...
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Bot on Sunday March 17 2019, @04:19PM (6 children)
Personally, I consider the amount of control I have over my life as the way to tell the good rulers from the bad rulers, so I tend to agree.
I'd be anti weapons for everybody, but definitely I can't be anti guns: anti militarism is so myopic to be necessarily malevolent. It just gives more power to all the other weapons, and those are deployed and used, globally, as we speak. Anything that renders somebody able to make you behave against your own best interest is a weapon. Money, demography, culture, drugs, you name it.
If all you need is 40 people dead to ban an ideology, you have some hundred thousand reasons to ban the left wing. So? So, nothing. The ban happens because those in power can pull it and can profit from it. They may profit as trolls, radicalizing whites just as they radicalized blacks and arabs. Does not matter.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 17 2019, @06:07PM (5 children)
The number of innocent deaths resulting from gun violence is staggering. School shootings alone are reason enough for me to shift my views on gun rights. These shootings are becoming more frequent and deadly and it's time for us to move past this idea that every citizen has some civic duty to be armed.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 17 2019, @06:36PM (1 child)
If one of the muslims at the second mosque hadn't owned a gun, [nationalreview.com] the death toll would have been higher.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 18 2019, @10:00AM
This is false. Read the article linked by National Review.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday March 17 2019, @11:16PM
And the next one's will be live-streamed, yes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 18 2019, @02:55PM
Not really. A lot more people than that die each year. It hasn't staggered us yet.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 18 2019, @05:50PM
get the fuck out of the country, while you still can.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 17 2019, @05:30PM
Wow, great point... An armed response to corporate content moderation is both correct and measured. Have fun shooting up the social networks...
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 17 2019, @04:07PM (6 children)
You are part of his plan:
(Score: 2) by Bot on Sunday March 17 2019, @04:20PM (5 children)
Guy looks smart but can't spell "effect". Factoid noted.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by jmorris on Sunday March 17 2019, @10:08PM (1 child)
That isn't the only problem with his manifesto. It looks fake. It reads like a researcher was tasked with collecting a "greatest hits" from the chans. It is incoherent though because the author couldn't really process the ideas, yet we are expected to believe this guy wrote it and was so dedicated he threw his own life away over it?
And yeah, the idea to agitate a race war up or get the gun banners to overreach and get the gun nuts to start shooting aren't new or original. Hell, inciting a race was wasn't a new idea when Charlie Manson gave it a go.
Then there is what I'm calling the "big tell" that a professional researcher put it together, the footnoting of "Wrath of the Awakened Saxon" as not being original Kipling. If you have wandered the dank corners of the Internet long you have seen that thing a few hundred times. Nobody has ever footnoted it, they either post it unattributed or incorrectly pass it off as Kipling. So the shooter is either the King of the Spergs or a pro did this book. A pro just wouldn't be able to help themselves, they would have to footnote it as not really being Kipling.
Then there is the huge elephant in the room notable for the absence, anyone who read the thing should have noticed it. But again, a pro wouldn't be able to bring them self to "go there" even on a paid commission writing as an "ebil Nazi"... who self identified as a "Eco Fascist" but that isn't the only misdirection in there. Parts of it are pure shitpoasting to troll the world.
Then we learn the shooter has been pretty much everywhere, including North Korea. WTF? if everybody is touring the place why do we refer to it as the "Hermit Kingdom? Eh? Then late last year he was in Pakistan? This is a guy so worked up about Muslims he just has to go on a murder spree?
Something ain't right, pieces of this story still missing. As usual.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 17 2019, @10:55PM
He's a trollerist.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 18 2019, @02:15AM (2 children)
Guy looks smart but can't look up the definition of the word 'affect'. Noted.
ObURL: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/affect [oxforddictionaries.com]
(Score: 2) by Bot on Monday March 18 2019, @01:37PM (1 child)
You are right, I am quite familiar with the VERB affect, but affect as a noun is used quite rarely and I didn't even think he might have meant that, which brings us back to what another commenter said. Manifesto looks like coming from a different background than the chan dweller terrorist.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 18 2019, @03:46PM
https://xkcd.com/326/ [xkcd.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 17 2019, @07:55PM (3 children)
"After watching it, I no longer believe gun ownership should be a constitutional right."
the ability to not be dominated by government is a natural right granted by god/the universe/nature. the 2A merely sought to recognize that natural right. you can choose to not exercise that right if you want to but i will kill your agents and then come for you if you try to take away my natural rights.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 18 2019, @11:22AM (2 children)
If the gun is not organic, do you still have a natural right to it?
Or did you mean to say "God given right two bear arms [lookhuman.com]"?
(Score: 2) by Bot on Monday March 18 2019, @01:47PM
> If the gun is not organic, do you still have a natural right to it?
The debate is turning kafkian.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 19 2019, @12:51AM
Grammatically, that should be "a God-granted right to two bear arms." There is enough ambiguity in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution (only place it exists, by the way) already. After Charlottesville, some liberals will no doubt try to amend it to just "a right to bear arm(s)" and argue the plural is generic and not specific, so each citizen only has a right to "a" bear arm, meaning only one. And how can you defend yourself or stand your ground against alt-white supremacist terrorists with only one bear arm, I ask you? Not like it is a credit card reader or something.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 18 2019, @12:57AM (1 child)
I haven't watched it, but after this event I no longer believe that freedom of religion should be a constitutional right. Islam must be banned from the US, and all white countries, and its believers deported. If there are no Muslims near any white Christians, then the white Christians won't be able to kill them.
Makes just as much sense as what you propose.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 18 2019, @03:48PM
Actually that makes a lot of sense.
If there were no mosques in new zealand then there would be no mass killings of muslems.
Unless muslums did something stupid like take over a country in the name of islam with the purpose of global jihad and openly declared war across the world. That would be war and anyone stupid enough to take part in it? What can be said for anyone who tries this?