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: 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.