DNC serves WikiLeaks with lawsuit via Twitter
The Democratic National Committee on Friday officially served its lawsuit to WikiLeaks via Twitter, employing a rare method to serve its suit to the elusive group that has thus far been unresponsive.As CBS News first reported last month, the DNC filed a motion with a federal court in Manhattan requesting permission to serve its complaint to WikiLeaks on Twitter, a platform the DNC argued the website uses regularly. The DNC filed a lawsuit in April against the Trump campaign, Russian government and WikiLeaks, alleging a massive conspiracy to tilt the 2016 election in Donald Trump's favor.All of the DNC's attempts to serve the lawsuit via email failed, the DNC said in last month's motion to the judge, which was ultimately approved.
The Democratic National Committee on Friday officially served its lawsuit to WikiLeaks via Twitter, employing a rare method to serve its suit to the elusive group that has thus far been unresponsive.
As CBS News first reported last month, the DNC filed a motion with a federal court in Manhattan requesting permission to serve its complaint to WikiLeaks on Twitter, a platform the DNC argued the website uses regularly. The DNC filed a lawsuit in April against the Trump campaign, Russian government and WikiLeaks, alleging a massive conspiracy to tilt the 2016 election in Donald Trump's favor.
All of the DNC's attempts to serve the lawsuit via email failed, the DNC said in last month's motion to the judge, which was ultimately approved.
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who has been holed up in Ecuador's London embassy for six years, is considering an offer to appear before a U.S. Senate committee to discuss alleged Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election, his lawyer said on Thursday.WikiLeaks published a letter from the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee on Wednesday which asked Assange to make himself available to testify in person at a closed hearing as part of its investigation into whether Moscow meddled to help Donald Trump win the 2016 presidential election. "The U.S. Senate Select Committee request confirms their interest in hearing from Mr Assange," lawyer Jennifer Robinson said in a statement.
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who has been holed up in Ecuador's London embassy for six years, is considering an offer to appear before a U.S. Senate committee to discuss alleged Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election, his lawyer said on Thursday.
WikiLeaks published a letter from the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee on Wednesday which asked Assange to make himself available to testify in person at a closed hearing as part of its investigation into whether Moscow meddled to help Donald Trump win the 2016 presidential election. "The U.S. Senate Select Committee request confirms their interest in hearing from Mr Assange," lawyer Jennifer Robinson said in a statement.
Julian Assange 'seriously considering' request to meet US Senate committee
Lawyers for Julian Assange say they are "seriously considering" a request from a US Senate committee to interview the WikiLeaks founder as part of its investigation into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 US election.The Senate select committee on intelligence has written to Assange at the Ecuadorian embassy in London, where he has been living for more than six years.[...] The chairman of the committee, Richard Burr, wrote: "As you are aware, the Senate select committee on intelligence is conducting a bipartisan inquiry into Russian interference in the 2016 US elections. As part of that inquiry, the committee requests that you make yourself available for a closed interview with bipartisan committee staff at a mutually agreeable time and location."
Lawyers for Julian Assange say they are "seriously considering" a request from a US Senate committee to interview the WikiLeaks founder as part of its investigation into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 US election.
The Senate select committee on intelligence has written to Assange at the Ecuadorian embassy in London, where he has been living for more than six years.
[...] The chairman of the committee, Richard Burr, wrote: "As you are aware, the Senate select committee on intelligence is conducting a bipartisan inquiry into Russian interference in the 2016 US elections. As part of that inquiry, the committee requests that you make yourself available for a closed interview with bipartisan committee staff at a mutually agreeable time and location."
The ultimate irony would involve Julian Assange avoiding Metropolitan Police arrest by somehow fleeing to the United States.
See also: Mueller subpoenas Randy Credico, who Roger Stone says was his WikiLeaks back channel
Previously: DNC's Lawsuit Against WikiLeaks is an Attack on Freedom of the Press
Related: Prominent Whistleblowers and Journalists Defend Julian Assange at Online VigilEcuador Reportedly Almost Ready to Hand Julian Assange Over to UK Authorities
All well and good provided he doesn't then flee to /dev/null.
Technically, nobody flees to /dev/null. That would be more of a euphemism for suicide. Which is an apt description for Assange setting foot in the United States, having repeatedly embarassed the powers that be.
One doesn't flee to /dev/null - one is piped there.
Only the Jews Democrats have the Chutzpah to due others for their own malfeasance.
That's pretty damned silly. You see that sort of thing every day almost. Go ahead and hack into some shoddily secured web site, government, corporate, non-profit, or even many private sites. Do your thing, explore, learn all of their vulnerabilities, then send them a nice polite letter informing them what a shit site they have. Chances are high that you'll be summoned to court to defend yourself against hacking charges. How many times have we seen that happen? FFS, people can accidentally stumble into non-public file systems, and be charged for hacking. You do keep up with the news, right?
Or, will you insist that every one of those idiot sites are maintained by Jews and/or Democrats?
Oh, look! You stepped in a big pile of stupid again.
You coronated Clinton over the will of the people during the primary. That's what a rigged election looks like. You knew HRC was hated by at least half the Democrats and virtually all Republicans. You made a boneheaded decision because the Clintons control a lot of money. As it turns out, even a billion dollars can't make a warpig like Hillary palatable enough to win. Accept it, move on, and quit trying to start a nuclear war over the fact you failed to snow enough people to win an election. In the future, you might try listening to the base rather than donors and Wall St. Sure, you don't have to do that but we also don't have to vote for you.
Fuck You Very Much
What happened regarding the attempt to become the "deep state" party?https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/03/07/dems-m07.html [wsws.org]
Jews have lots of their own problems too. Sometimes they have to divert their attention away from meddling in American politics to focus on their own affairs.
Blame the voters too. She did win what counts for the popular vote in the democratic primary.
She was wildly unpopular on a national scale, but a lot of regular-ass voters bought the lie that she was "more electable" in the face of evidence that said the opposite.
Never mind the most of the "superdelegates" publicly backed Clinton in violation of Party rules.
Face it; the original intent was for Clinton to face only token resistance on her way to the White House.
I mean we can get a lot of depth of what a lie the name "democratic" is with regards to party structure, but there's more than just the stupid-ass present to that, there's also a stupid-ass past to that.
I'm sure a lot of people were for Clinton, because Bernie proposed getting people back to work again.You can get used to free money, even if it isn't much.
She did win what counts for the popular vote in the democratic primary.
Did she really? Are you really sure of that?
Let's go back to the Iowa primaries. Six precincts tied. Each of those precincts was decided by a coin toss. And, Clinton won every coin toss. Odd, wasn't it? Iowa, with it's historical "magical" way of determining how "electable" a candidate might be. Of course, there was nothing fishy about those coin tosses if you happen to be a Clinton supporter, or if you're a die-hard partisan. But the rest of us look at that, and question the odds.
In fact, many of us insist that there was nothing legitimate about Clinton's campaign. I'll go even further. There is nothing legitimate about Hillary - full stop. She's as queer as a three dollar bill. I can't define her queerness, but she's queer. (And, in this case, I mean "queer" as it was defined before it applied to gays.)
I think you're talking about things related to the Electoral College. The popular vote was simply the total number of votes correct? They don't give the entire precincts votes away to the winner?
If the individual votes are what constitutes the popular, then what is being decided by a coin toss?
Iowa has caucuses [wikipedia.org], not primaries. Wikipedia has a description of how it works [wikipedia.org]. The short version is that it sounds like it's a winner-take-all system per precinct and precincts are small enough that ties are not terribly unlikely, especially as in a caucus, only registered voters who manage to show up in person and on time vote, so they tend to have very low turnout.
The simplest explanation for this post is that its a bot. Its otherwise difficult to understand the lack of reading comprehension.
aebonyne follows my thinking (although I'm not sure he agrees with it). Iowa has a special status in the election cycle, in that they set the tone, or the trend, for voters around the country. Iowa is the "most watched", in large part because they start the voting season off. Call it a caucus or a primary, they are first, and many people take their lead from Iowa's results.
Half a dozen of those precincts in the caucus were decided by coin tosses, and they all went to Hillary.
Had Bernie won in Iowa, instead of Hillary, voting around the entire country *could have* been very, very different. 50/50 odds for a coin toss, right? Unless you're flipping a double headed coin.
Please note that there is no way to prove how things *might have* gone. What's done is done, and we can only speculate what the alternative results may have been. But the fact is, Hillary took the first round of voting with coin tosses, not by votes. And, I personally think it very suspicious that she won all six tosses - bing, bang, boom.
It all ties in with the corruption that was later exposed by the DNC. And, all of it put together may help to explain why I despise the DNC more than I despise the Republicans. The GOP fought their renegade candidate pretty hard, until it became obvious the voters were siding with Trump. At which point, the GOP finally threw their support behind Trump. The DNC, on the other hand, knew that the vote was rigged, and they were never going to throw support to Bernie. Their support remained squarely behind Hillary, DESPITE the voter's wishes.
Which still has nothing to do with the outcome of the popular vote that the person was talking about.
Please, scroll on down to hemocyanin's response, posted after your own response. His link explains much that you have apparently overlooked. The DNC's campaign was dirty from start to finish.
That is still about delegates, not the popular vote (which is just adding up all the votes). Not sure why this is difficult for some people...
Popular vote, you say. And, then you dismiss the fact that Bernie had the popular vote. How does that work? Bernie led Hillary, time and time again with the vote, but Hillary got the delegates, and the "super" delegates were all hers anyway.
If the Democratic party had respected the popular vote, they would have run Bernie against our Orange Ape. And - BERNIE MAY HAVE WON!!
Once again, we can't know that. We can only speculate how that race would have gone. But, we don't need to speculate that the DNC stacked the deck in Hillary's favor, until the deck collapsed like every house of cards eventually does.
So, where do you want to go now? You want to reiterate that Trump didn't win the popular vote? Well - neither did Hillary. Do we go back and nullify the election, and ask Bernie to take the office? Will that assuage your angst?
Popular vote, you say. And, then you dismiss the fact that Bernie had the popular vote.
I didn't dismiss the fact bernie had the popular vote anywhere. Im just pointing out people keep talking about delegates instead of the popular vote. That is all. Literally nothing else. You just want any excuse to push some sort of talking point. Wow.
What everyone knows is that there are delegates and super-delegates. Super-delegates are the usual band of corporate/lobyist/pharma/insurance/wallStreet/MIC scum. A Super Delegate's single vote was worth something like 10,000 votes from peons like us. It's gross. The two parties have subsumed the electoral process but the Democrats like to play that they're a private party and get to do _whatever_ while at the same time using the public election resources -- my money, your money. It's like robbery so they can pick whoever they want in a cigar smoke filled back room and do it on the backs of all taxpayers. https://medium.com/theyoungturks/dnc-we-can-legally-choose-candidate-over-cigars-in-back-room-e3026730e252 [medium.com]
What is extra ironic, the Republican primary was far more democratic -- their super delegates have to vote the way the people did. https://www.bustle.com/articles/141611-does-the-gop-have-superdelegates-the-republican-partys-nomination-rules-are-different-this-year [bustle.com]
Here's the results of the Democratic primary [wikipedia.org]. The popular vote is listed as 16,914,722 for Clinton and 13,206,428 for Sanders. By those numbers, Clinton won the popular vote by 3.7 million votes or 12 percentage points. That's not even a close race. Clinton's delegate count possibly being slightly higher than expected by her proportion of the popular vote due to rules details is irrelevant to the final result.
Let me tell you why those numbers are crap. They don't include ALL the states.
WA is a caucus state. The DNC has never released the popular vote numbers from the WA caucus. There was also a primary ballot that was run by the WA SOS, but the DNC ignored that and decided to do a caucus process -- as a result any primary ballot numbers reported by the state of WA are meaningless -- it was an after the caucus straw poll and had no effect on the election, and everyone here knew that. The only numbers the DNC has ever released from the caucuses, are the precinct delegate results. Precinct caucuses are the lowest level -- that's where the individual votes are gathered and delegates to the county convention selected. Those delegates are pledged to vote for a specific candidate. The WA DNC has released the number of delegates from each precinct. Ah you think, we can just calculate the popular vote totals from that number and the number of voters. Wrong.
In my precinct, HRC got 14% of the popular vote and she was alloted 25% of the pledged delegates. The ONLY number WA DNC has ever published was the pledged delegate number. They know the actual vote, every precinct turned in a sheet with the tally, but they have never released it. This kind of rounding error in HRC's favor propagated all the way through the county and state caucuses.
At the end of the process, Bernie got 74 delegates to the national convention, HRC got 27, and 17 were uncommitted (yea right) (118 total). Ignoring uncommitted, the spread between Bernie and HRC was 47 delegates (30 if you presume those "uncommitted" would be voting for HRC). If delegates were apportioned by popular vote, and Bernie had 80-85% of that vote, the loss for Clinton would have been huge. 0.8 * 118=94; 0.2 * 118=24. The spread in this case would have been a whopping 70 delegates. In the end, Bernie probably got about 67% of what he deserved to get out the WA caucus, and Clinton got away with little damage.
So you see, the process from the precincts on up was designed to benefit HRC -- in fact, in previous years, her 14% popular vote in my precinct would not have been enough to get across the viability threshold. They changed that rule for the last election, for obvious reasons.
Anyway, I challenge you to find the CAUCUS (not the irrelevant primary) popular vote totals for WA. Until you can do that, there is no valid number for the popular primary vote because it omits places Bernie was most popular.
You seem pretty informed on this. I thought there was a state that decided at the party level to just go with Hillary over Bernie. Was that Colorado? Whats the deal with that?
I don't normally look to twitter for good information, but this thread outlines how time and again during the primaries, Clinton got more delegates than the popular vote warranted, including states where despite winning the popular vote, Clinton won the delegate count (all due the anti-democratic practice of super-delegates): https://twitter.com/philosophrob/status/905118924311801864 [twitter.com]
Democrats complaining about election rigging is like Jeffry Dahmer complaining about how his steaks are cooked.
this: despite winning the popular vote, Clinton won the delegate countto this: despite BERNIE winning the popular vote, Clinton won the delegate count
That thread is pretty nitpicky. Most of the percentages are slightly off, which unsurprising given that some voting inefficiency is inevitable in a districted system instead of a popular vote system. Without seeing a chart of all of the states, it's hard to tell if they're cherry-picking. Obviously Hillary won the primary in both delegates (not counting super-delegates which have never affected a Democratic primary since the current system of having the general population vote in a primary was instituted) and votes, so it's not like this actually helped her win the primary, as much as some news reports may have used it (like the super-delegates) as a way to exaggerate her already substantial lead.
Of course, the Democrats chose to run their primary as a districted system instead of a popular vote system for similar reasons to why the United States originally chose to use the Electoral College: to make sure the election system chooses a candidate with broad support as opposed to strong support in a small number of areas. If Hillary consistently won more delegates than one would expect from her vote percentage, that means that districts that went for Bernie did so by larger margins than districts that went for Hillary. In other words, the results imply that Bernie had a concentrated base of excited supporters while Hillary had supporters everywhere. Which choice is the best for an electoral system is a matter for debate, but in this case Hillary won the popular vote of the primary as well by quite a bit, so it's not really an issue as both choices give the same winner.
(Obviously, the Democrats are in favor of the other choice for the general presidential election because they have trouble appealing to rural areas, but arguing to change the rules to ignore a constituency, even one that is a minority in population, seems like an undemocratic choice as opposed to changing their policies and messaging to actually represent as many people as possible. Bernie was a step in the other direction; Clinton at least had policies trying to help rural areas in her platform, although she clearly failed at messaging.)
It isn't nitpicky -- you have states where HRC would get say 4% more than she deserved, which means Bernie got 4% LESS than he deserved -- that's an 8% spread. Then of course there are states where Bernie flat out won -- like Wyoming -- but Clinton won the delegate count. https://pics.me.me/dem-caucus-wyoming-18-delegates-bernie-sanders-democrat-56-dem-7732106.png [pics.me.me] Bernie won 56% of the vote to get 39% of the delegates. That's some democracy.
My own personal experience in the WA caucus was a real eyeopener -- while Bernie won WA, the HRCbots did everything possible to make the win worth less than its true value because they understood that spread is what is vitally important and with only a little extra thumb on the scale, democracy is irrelevant. Ultimately, the DNC rigged it so that where Bernie would win, he would either lose or not get the full benefit of his win, and where HRC won, she almost always got a little extra to boot.
That's not nitpicking -- that's pointing out how rigged it was. Bernie would have needed a super-majority in order to get the benefit of a mere simple majority.
Crooked Hillary got VERY LUCKY with the coins. And it worked out tremendously for me -- I had so much fun running against her. But I would have beaten Bernie overwhelmingly. I'd love to run against Bernie, even if he’s in a wheelchair. Can you imagine, we're doing the Debates. And there I am, 6 foot 3. Debating a wheelchair guy. I could win without saying one word. Without a word. Who is going to run against me in 2020? Crooked Hillary? Pocahontas? High Crime Nancy Pelosi? Cancer Brain McCain? Oprah? Trust me, I have dirt on Oprah like you wouldn't believe.
I'll tell you, I got very lucky too. At the Cleveland convention. The Never Trumpers wanted to change the rules. So they could make their guy the nominee. And totally ignore the will of the American people, of the voters in the Primasies -- you know, just like the Democrat Party does all the time. Well, the chair made that one a voice vote. Where you say "aye" or "nay." And the Never Trumpers lost by a decibel. It's not a lot. Not a lot at all. They lost, I won. And the rest is history!!!!
How does that Russian Koolaid taste? Do you really like having the orange raciest in charge?
Oh, you're one of those idiots trying to deflect valid criticism with whataboutism.
What about this: in all the bad things Trump is doing, he's facing strong opposition, rendering him mostly harmless. The terrible environmental policies of his EPA cronies will be undone. His silly ban on Muslims entering the country already has. Just about anything he breaks can be fixed later. He's the lesser of two evils, and way more entertaining to boot. He turned the position of "most powerful man on Earth" into a reality TV show, which is fucking befitting for what your country has become.
But so far he hasn't started more wars and he even deescalated in the Korea conflict. I'm mostly critical of the USA due to their imperialistic foreign policy and constant destruction of real democracies and open societies if it befits their goals. All major conflicts of the 20th century had the USA meddling in them and most of them were started because of US intervention. US foreign policy killed countless millions and made life miserable for countless more and Hillary would have continued this tradition. She would not have faced any opposition because it's considered a matter of course in the US to fuck up the rest of the world to make a quick buck. Oh so exceptional you are...
It's ironic that the pychopatic, racist orange baboon now at the helm turns out to be an envoy of relative peace. But it's a welcome change. I'll root for Trump again next election, he's the president you deserve.
I can't actually think of a bone-headed and/or evil idea of his that he hasn't been allowed to implement besides the stupid wall.
One of the biggest things that Trump has done this presidency is stop the US funding of Syrian rebels and white helmets allowing the situation to deescalate. There are some pros and cons that people will care about depending on their political affiliationProsAssad wasn't actually that bad. Look at the stats for women education, religious freedom, violence, as far as dictators go he was doing pretty well.Assad as a strongman kept the region in checkAssad destabilized allowed ISIS and other "bad" groups to really take hold, this is bad for usConsIsrael doesn't like himCan't make money selling weapons if the world isn't at war.
I think keeping the US from getting bogged down in another Syrian state more than it already was would have been a huge mistake, somehow managing to avoid that is one of the best things he has done.
Do you mean "*Letting* the US get bogged down..." would have been a huge mistake?
That last sentence of mine was a complete mess.
Presuming that your question isn't merely rhetorical (which it surely is) - relatively few people "like" the Orange Monkeyman. But, many people are very sure that he was the lesser of the two evils offered.
You may continue with your meaningless rhetoric now.
The whole Democratic primary seemed pretty fucked to me. Hillary should have done well with older voters who want a more safe conservative bet, Sanders should have done well with young voters who aren't smart enough to think for themselves and want the world handed to them on a plate. In Louisiana Sanders did better than Hillary on the paper ballots, but somehow got so many more electronic votes that it helped her carry the state. There is no way paper can be +1 Sanders and electronic +7 Hillary. There was fraud in the primary in favor of Clinton.
So you're OK with a major political party aiding and benefiting from coordinated attacks against our voting systems by a foreign government? Or using said foreign government as a tool to commit hacking and phishing attacks against political opponents?
What attack against a voting system? And what defense against actual hacking has been implemented?
From what Ive read the voting systems have only gotten more shady. Eg: https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=27019&page=1&cid=719186#commentwrap [soylentnews.org]
No,AMERICA is okay with governments using coordinated attacks on governments.AMERICA is okay with commiting hacking and phishing attacks against political opponents.
AMERICA does it ALL the time with foreign elections, but GOD FUCKING FORBID it happens to them!Harumph harumph, this is the U the S of the fucking A! You can't do that! Amuricah!
Americans need to sit the fuck down and look at themselves: how many of their and the world's problems are because THEY interfere where they shouldn't.
America needs to go sit in the corner with a dunce cap on until they can get their shit together and be a good little country.
Read on,https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/10/13/the-long-history-of-the-u-s-interfering-with-elections-elsewhere/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.94583b48d11e [washingtonpost.com]
But, "What difference – at this point, what difference does it make?"
Well there is a disconnect, and it starts with the word "classified".
Good non answer.
transparency, the people don't actually know what is being done by their country
I've got a few grams of sulfur you could pretend is yellowcake if you want.
But when Daniel Ortega and the Communists were voted out of office in Nicaragua, the US gave Ortega's opponent vast sums of campaign financing.
I'd like to see that outlawed - donations to foreign campaigns.
Would be nice if that were true. It is what Article 1 says. But it is not what SCOTUS says. PACS can take foreign money and they don't have to disclose doners. Public corporations act in the feduciary interest of stockholders, which are multinational in most cases. And they get to donate directly to politicians.
So while Article 1 says they can't accept foreign money. SCOTUS has said, for all practical purposes, they can. But hey, that isn't the only part of the document that is regularly used for judicial toilet paper. So don't let it spoil your mood.
how many of their and the world's problems are because THEY interfere where they shouldn't.
Ottoman empire, Israel, Iran (repeatedly), Iraq, Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, every banana republic in the western hemisphere, the list goes on and on.
I might point out that some of that meddling was in response to the Soviet manipulating us like an old whore might manipulate a teenage boy raging with hormones.
Regardless, if a foreign country attacked the voting infrastructure and interfered that way, it constitutes an act of war IMO. We should take it seriously, regardless of how shitty we've been in the past, because we actually do need to move forward. Either that, or America is going to splinter and/or morph into something decidedly diverged from our American principles we started with.
However, more and more it simply looked like we got played, and handed them all the ammunition and weapons on silver platters. We gave all of our information to Facebook, unloaded all our pettiness, ugliness, and weaknesses on Twitter, used the Internet to treat each other like shit.
They took that and played us against each other like a fiddle. We're still dancing, and we're still getting played.
However, more and more it simply looked like we got played, and handed them all the ammunition and weapons on silver platters. We gave all of our information to Facebook, unloaded all our pettiness, ugliness, and weaknesses on Twitter, used the Internet to treat each other like shit.They took that and played us against each other like a fiddle. We're still dancing, and we're still getting played.
I dont like how this post morphs in to talking about "we" and "us".
I am far more comfortable with a foreign attack against our voting system, than I am with domestic attacks. Any attack by Russia, real or imagined, is far less dangerous to our system than the DNC's attacks from within.
Have you ever read any war stories? Do you have any idea how complicated war is? Or, not even a whole war, just a campaign within the war. You have enemies outside your perimeter, and everyone is primed to deal with those enemies. But, what about the spy within, who is sabotaging your efforts? How do you defend against that damned spy? It's tough. One spy can do more damage than thousands of enemies on the battlefield. An internal traitor has access to assets that none of those external enemies can possibly use.
Are YOU comfortable with traitors and internal enemies manipulating our voting system?
I am far more comfortable with a foreign attack against our voting system, than I am with domestic attacks. Any attack by Russia, real or imagined, is far less dangerous to our system than the DNC's attacks from within.
Then you are a fool. The Russians are much more dangerous than the clowns who run the DNC. And frankly, siding with a bunch of oligarchic Republicans and Russians over a bunch of oligarchic Democrats never sounded like a great strategy anyway. Within twenty years it will all be over anyway - either the demographic shifts will occur that will ensure that the Republican party is a permanent minority party or the US will turn into an apartheid state where minority rule triumphs and no one with a conscience will actually want to live. I now know which one you wish for.
Why do you hate the Russians so much? The Soviet was my enemy. The Russian people were never my enemy. You sound vaguely like Ethanol Fueled, with your undying hatred of a people. I have an exercise for you, that might help cure, or at least dull, your hatred. Find a nice big blackboard, like we used to have in schoolrooms. You know, wall-to-wall slate. It doesn't have to be black, but black is best. Dark-gree-almost-black is good, and dark-blue-almost-black is good. Don't settle for some bullshit imitation white-board though. It's got to be a blackboard. You're going to write out, 100 times, "Soviet bad, Russkie good."
Repeat the exercise twice a day for the next 365 days, or longer if necesary. And, no, there is no need to shake before exercising. Just have a single beer after the exercise, and go on about your business.
I don't care how the DNC emails were obtained, since they should have been released anyway. The People have a right to know about corruption. I wish the same would happen to the RNC.
Israel has been doing that left, right, center, inside, and outside to the USA for decades, with no such outcry whatsoever. Their lobby, AIPAC, is universally rated as the third most powerful in America, behind the AARP and the NRA. Where are the breathless pundits hyperventilating over the threat to American democracy that that is? They have their hooks into so many levels of our society, and evenbrazenly stole our nuclear technology and used it to build 200 nuclear weapons, but we haven't nuked them off the face of the planet. Why is that?
People puffing and moaning about "Russian interference" in US elections in the form of $100K in Facebook ads need to ponder those questions and promptly shut the hell up, unless they begin militating against Israel's foreign meddling in American elections with equal or greater fervor.
Sorry, if you ask for any consistency or prioritization its called "whataboutism" to these people.
On the good side, the lack of any application of rational thought is why these organizations they (supposedly) support or are financed by are dying.
Yup.America doesn't mind interfering in other countries elections, but wtf, Russkies?....
America uses election systems that are WIDE OPEN to hacking or fraud, then cry when there is possible evidence of hacking or fraud....
And the DNC watch as Hillary fucks Bernie yet STILL put her out as an acceptable candidate....
But wilileaks is the bad guy.Yeahhhhhh....
The funny thing about the alleged interference is that no fraud was required. And so far, hacking has been alleged but not proven. There are plausible alternative explanations how the information could have gotten out, like a whistleblower. A hack by Russians sounds a whole lot like the kind of decoy FUD story HRC would use for damage control. Wasn't there something about her government infosec malpractice to sweep under the rug too? Hmmm....
And excuse me while I recalibrate my sarcasm detector, but how the fuck is it "interference" to just expose the truth [about the DNC]? It's what any "legacy" journalist worth their salt would have done, had the information been given to them. If we consider the whistleblower theory, would it still be interference?
If we exclude the uncertainties, like the hacking accusations and purported sponsored social media trolls, neither of which can be proven nor attributed to Russia, all that's left is an online ad campaign paid for by Russians. LOL if that is all it takes to render kaputt the greatest democracy in the world!
Want to see how real election meddling looks like? Just ask Hillary herself, she gladly used it on other countries, not least Syria, during her tenure as a secretary of state. Things like fomenting armed rebellions of religious crazies and supplying them with weapons is the Hillary way, and she is upset with those evil Russians merely trolling her with words? The same Hillary who wouldn't mind nuclear war? Bitch puhleeze! :D
The actually funny thing here is that there wasn't any point in the Russians rigging the election as the DNC did an extremely effective job of ensuring that the eventual GOP nominee would win the election. The only reason that the DNC was able to win the popular vote was that they chose the least qualified, most hated woman possible to run in the general election. And even that was only sufficient to win the popular vote due to the worst possible GOP candidate being the nominee, she couldn't even be bothered to give the voters a reason to vote for her or turn up in key states.
I have a theory that the DNC intentionally lost the election, because they knew that economic disaster was heading right towards us, and they didn't want to be blamed. They just didn't imagine that the Republicans would also be trying to lose the election, so both sides picked candidates as repulsive as possible. I think everyone was surprised at every step along the way, that Trump won. And if they'd realized what they were getting into ahead of time, they'd have done *something* different. Perhaps support Romney under the table or something.
I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but everything points to the Dems actually believing in Hillary having been their best shot. First woman in office, rooted deeply in the political network of favours and blackmails that enables the continuation of the established client politics defining the status quo, appealing to both hawks and hippies.... I can guarantee that's what they got sold on, or bullied and blackmailed into accepting. Hillary was convinced that it was her turn, that she had an inalienable right to the throne. Hell she had already sold her pay to play tickets. Wonder if she refunded that shit. Anyway, she'll have moved heaven and hell and curried every owed favour to get the party fully behind her and make. it. happen. No way were they trying to lose, because had Hillary found out, she'd have utterly destroyed those responsible. And she's pretty fucking scary.
But nice conspiracy theory.
Here's another one: there never was any hacking, but someone in the DNC grew a conscience and passed those files under the guise of a "hacker" so noone, especially not Hillary, would suspect a staffer. Because see above.
I've just read the Mueller indictment [justice.gov] and they have nothing. No concrete dates for anything, even those events that would be easy to forensically nail down had they really happend. Just a collection of fuzzy hand-wringing accusations but wholly without substance, I could have written a better crime novel in 4th grade.
I think you mean despite having a hated candidate the DNC still won the popular vote.
If California wants to take her as governor thats totally up to them. But California doesn't get to decide the President for the US on their own. Fortunately we are a Republic and our founders put an electoral college in to keep one state from having too much power over the others.
A good article on this topic with the following 5 sections: https://steemit.com/russia/@caitlinjohnstone/five-things-that-would-make-the-cia-cnn-russia-narrative-more-believable [steemit.com]
FWIW, I consider the Russian meddling to be unwarranted and unacceptable, but I also consider the corporate meddling to unwarranted and unacceptable. And multiple actions of the FBI.
God...wake up and smell the napalm. Your brain has been hacked and you don't have a fucking clue.
Accept it, move on, and quit trying to start a nuclear war over the fact you failed to snow enough people to win an election.
Accept it, move on, and quit trying to start a nuclear war over the fact you failed to snow enough people to win an election.
Trump was able to convince 304 delegates to the electoral college to vote for him. Don't make it sound like actual people chose him. The people wanted something else.
And he's doing a damn-fine job protecting the White heiritage of America from the scourge of third-world filth.
Well that kinda says it all don't it. Get a clue dude.
Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life, son.
"Something else" wasn't on offer, thanks to your so-called two-party "democracy" where both parties are being controlled by the same entities pretty much.
The people wanted something else.
Roughly 42% of the eligible population didn't even vote. Hillary may have got more votes overall but there's plenty left going unused that could have crushed both candidates if they felt like someone was worth voting for.
If Hiillary didn't know how the EC worked, yeah, she failed to snow enough people that her her corporatist surveillance state program of war and destruction at the expense of working people was a good idea, and deserved to lose.
she failed to snow enough people that her her corporatist surveillance state program of war and destruction at the expense of working people was a good idea, and deserved to lose.
Well, thank god Trump won and now the corporatist surveillance state program of war and destruction at the expense of working people has been defeated. Right, you stupid sonofabitch?
What is interesting, is that with Trump elected there is pushback on these policies -- at least rhetorically though perhaps not when it comes to funding the MIC. With HRC in office, it would have been like Obama's term -- silence. So the irony is, peace and goodwill seem to be more protected when the GOP is in office, and sacrificed without a peep when a Democrat is in office. In a weird way, that makes Trump the lesser evil -- not because HE is less evil, but because Democrats ONLY oppose evil policies when the GOP does it, never when they do it.
Having what you call "pushback" from the administration while only funding more surveillance might be a greater evil, because the lip service makes people think something is happening, when really the evil is just accelerating. People like you.
Instead of the corporatism of Clinton, we have the far more corrupt crony corporatism of Trump, where you don't know if you're in or out from day to day, depending on what he saw on TV that morning. Meanwhile, we have a president who gets marching orders direct from oligarchs. No, Hilary was a lesser evil. She would have lasted one term and then we could have an actual discussion. Instead, we have nazis being escorted to the White House by DC police to keep them safe. I'm glad my dad isn't around to see a day when the president gives cover to nazis and white supremacists and law enforcement forms a human shield around them.
HRC would be a lesser evil in the same way Obama was, you know, expanding GWB's due process free detention based on secret legal memos (Gitmo) to include due process free execution based on secret legal memos, expanding the wars, selling out healthcare to the insurance industry, coddling Wall St. and banksters, making the GWB tax cuts (at least 82% of them) permanent. And Obama ran campaigns pretending to be progressive and anti-war. Clinton basically promised war with Syria (and a shooting match between Russian and American warplanes) and she could barely bring herself to even think about policies that help the working class and offer empty platitudes only after being dragged kicking and screaming from some Wall St. cock.
Christ, if that's the lesser evil, ho-ly fuck.
The number one thing I am thankful for with Trump is that his corruption has to do with building hotels and selling more of his products at home and abroad. It is a whole lot easier for him to make money if the US is not involved in tons of wars/conflicts overseas. If it costs the US a couple million to build Trump the "Kim and Moon Peace and Prosperity Trump International Hotel" in Pyongyang then its a damn good deal. If It costs us the price of a hotel in Tehran to get peace between the two countries then its a damn good deal. If it means Trump gets to sell his families products in Cuba, Russia, etc and in exchange we get peace than its a damn good deal.
Trump offers us peace in exchange for him and his family getting rich. The other candidates offer us war in exchange for them and their families getting rich. I would prefer get fucked by the one who is okay with peace than the one who wants war.
Word on the street is that you could serve your complaint on Twitter.
IIUC, you have to first try to use a process server, and then several other approaches, and also to demonstrate that the group you want to sue regularly uses Twitter before you can serve them that way. Oh, yes, and also get a judge to approve that method of service ahead of time.
How does that Russian Koolaid taste? Do you really like having the orange raciest in charge?
This plot twist was unexpected. Is anyone aware if the the Senate Intelligence Committee has authority to e.g. grant immunity from prosecution?
I doubt they can, they aren't part of the judicial branch, so they have no say in sentencing. They're also not a part of the executive branch, so they can't pardon people and they don't deal with prosecution either. Really, the only people who can actually do this are either judges or the President/governor as appropriate.
Anybody else is completely at the whims of those parties to go along with it. And sometimes they don't, sometimes the prosecutor offers a deal and the judge says no, giving the defendant the sentence they likely would have received anyways.
There is a law that gives them that power.
But in googling the law just now I found lots of arguments that that law is unconstitutional.
That a law is unconstitutional doesn't prevent it from being enforced. One has to sue to overturn it.
Well there is a little matter of what the U.S. Constitution says."Section 81: The Congress shall have Power To....14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;...18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof...."
Maybe it wasn't the Republicans but instead the Koch brothers sponsoring him?
The Swedish arrest warrant for Assange was withdrawn last year but that is the least of the guys problems. We know the DNC laundered their dirty dossier through Fusion GPS and the British intelligence community. The only way Assange testifies is if his insurance policy (dead mans switch) contains documents more damaging than his testimony.
Yeah, I've got no more screams of frustration or rage or even fear that this kind of thing is happening. It's just a kind of constant, mind-numbing spiral of worse-and-worse every damn day. There aren't any good guys here. And I wonder if there ever will be again.
There aren't any good guys here. And I wonder if there ever will be again.
I sincerely doubt that there will be. Our grand experiment with representative democracy has failed.
The problem is corruption via lack of transparency and centralized control of media. It is too easy to suppress information, and direct democracy simply isnt suitable for every situation. All other systems are worse so far.
That's how it's been failing. Pointing out the problems doesn't make them automatically go away.
There are a lot of system design problems in the US government, in particular that the Constitution has no ability to enforce itself, so those in power ignore it whenever they see fit.
Just interpret the second amendment as declaring the People as the Sergent at Arms for the government. The Constitution is supposed to be upheld by the guns the citizens hold. The founders expected those in government to run away with power as soon as they could.
The unfortunate thing we have going on is that the Left is terrified of guns and okay with larger government as long as that government takes away the guns. The bad thing about the right is that they are only interested in the second amendment for the purpose of defending the second amendment, but not anything else. Those to the right is that gun rights have made them docile, they assume that as long as the second amendment stands the remainder cannot be taken away. The right is a frog being slowly cooked and by the time they realize that the second amendment was the last thing the government was coming for it will be too late.
The large number of armed citizens has not lead to the constitution being upheld. So think of another approach.
For that matter, vigilante groups were notorious for their disregard of both law and justice. I suspect that the approach you're suggesting has no way of being fixed.
I hope we swiftly become a monarchy. The people have demonstrated that demogogues are more popular than good governors. But demogogues don't want to face their incompetence at actual government at the next election, so they build structures like the NSA to justify their continued election. Monarchy solves such problems, particularly hereditary: one raised from birth to govern, and who has no additional power, is likely to both know how to govern better than a demogogue and also be incentivized to rule for the good of the people rather than to increase power. Certainly the nobles will plot and intrigue, but they have no incentive to spy outside their circle. And a ultimately accountable monarch is far preferable to the faceless bureaucracy where nobody takes responsibility for a rule denying people what they want.
You can just move to england?
Are you suggesting Hillary would have been a "good governor"? Hilla-rious.
While there are many examples in history of benevolent competent monarchs, they are by no means the only possibility. Heredity is a crapshoot.
Monarchy solves such problems, particularly hereditary: one raised from birth to govern, and who has no additional power, is likely to both know how to govern better than a demogogue
Okay, perhaps govern better than a demogogue, but many politicians are professionals already training their entire careers, and look what we get. (Also, plenty of families with multiple generations who are major politicians.) Why is strict heredity going to be better than what we already see from career politicians?
and also be incentivized to rule for the good of the people rather than to increase power.
Oh wait, you're serious. Why the heck would that be true? Perhaps you haven't heard the line about "power corrupts..."
And a ultimately accountable monarch
And a ultimately accountable monarch
Huh. Accountable to whom? I'm not sure you understand the definition of "monarch." ( Hint: it's in the root "mon-".)
Perhaps you're confusing actual monarchy (where the monarch has real power) with most of the "Constitutional monarchies" that exist today, where the monarch is mostly a figurehead and real power is in a "prime minister" or some such role, who is either elected directly or elected by a body of popular representatives.
If you need a refresher on the kind of crap that actual monarchs do to their people, I can recommend some reading on the subject by a guy named Jefferson. It's called the "Declaration of Independence."
An interesting in between case is the Anglo-Saxon Monarchy in Britain. They didn't have a rule of primo-geniture. IIRC anyone out to the first degree (sons, possibly daughters, cousins, nephews, possibly neices) of the current monarch could be elected by the "council of elders" as the next king (or queen?).
IIUC, most of the rulers were well intentioned, but many were somewhat incompetent. I've even heard it claimed that William of Normandy was qualified as a candidate. I'm not sure that's true, and I don't know what the Anglo-Saxon attitudes towards bastards was. And when I look up his ancestry on the net it doesn't seem likely.
OTOH, the Anglo-Saxons weren't running a police state. And "well intentioned" probably means they supported the traditional nobility.
It's because little pussy snowflakes on either side can't stand the rough and tumble of democracy and would like a nice strong dictator to make decisions for them. Ask the East Germans how well that worked.
The same person who thinks the republican party is dying but not the democratic...
No, I think both of them are dying, but that we'd be better off with the one who's more anti-science and pro-religion dying more quickly.
Right off the bat, this would mean we probably get more than 8 years out of Trump. We might get 20.
Trump Jr. is excellent.
After that... I'm much less certain, but I think the result would still be good.
Our grand experiment with representative democracy has failed.
Our grand experiment with representative democracy has failed.
WTF? A corrupt, self-serving elite can no longer collude to prejudice and manipulate the outcome of the vote. Suddenly, we're hearing that democracy has failed?
Writing on his novel "Naked Lunch", William S. Burroughs stated Jack Kerouac suggested the title.
The title means exactly what the words say: naked lunch, a frozen moment when everyone sees what is on the end of every fork.
What did everyone see? [youtube.com]
Amen, brot sister.
When were there ever good guys?
Lighten up and see it for what it is: a grandiose show orchestrated to trigger your survival instincts, trying to make you accept bad deals because it could be worse. Don't be afraid. Instead, laugh at the manipulators as control gradually slides from their hands thanks to the information revolution. You are witnessing their death rattle. It's entertaining.
Support technology enabling censorship-resistant, anonymous exchange of information like I2P to speed up the process. Accept that you can do little by yourself, but the machine has been set in motion and it will not stop. It all may have to burn first before it gets better, but it will be better. Stockpile marshmallows and be ready.
as control gradually slides from their hands thanks to the information revolution
I think that you are rather naive. Many governments, throughout history, have controlled the media. In the "information age", some of that control has slipped, but governments are learning, just like people are learning. We read of censorship efforts in various countries pretty regularly. And, the censors seem to win as often as they lose. Give it time - gubbermint will probably win.
And, you should also factor in that much of the media hopes to share control with that censorial government. America's MSM supports the more liberal/progressive party, at this point in time. Why? What is the return, for them? Do Ted Turner and Patty Hearst expect no return on their efforts? CNN, MSNBC? Do all of those people plan to surrender their wealth, to be distributed to "the people", if/when the US goes all-out socialist? If you believe that, maybe I can interest you in a bridge.
Sorry, wall of text...
And I think you are a relic having lived under the status quo for too long. Tough shit if they've broken you into accepting their narrative of invincibility. There's still enough of us left who won't give up this easily. And if you looked more carefully, you would see the shift that is happening.
When the internet came into existence, in its early days it was a utopia. It was a free exchange of information and ideas between mutually respecting individuals. It enabled insights in different cultures that before would not have been possible, because suddenly skin colour and foreign-looking physical appearance were obsolete concepts that did not apply in this new space. Social status or academic credentials were irrelevant, you might have been a dog and noone would have cared as long as what you had to say was relevant and interesting. It looked like information was finally free and a new age of enlightenment was coming. It looked like the start of something even more awesome, the fraternization of the peoples of the world without the petty interests of governments and rich sociopaths getting in the way. Society seemed on the verge of becoming truly cosmopolitan. I was fortunate enough to have witnessed it and I can still feel the spirit.
Of course, the powers that be couldn't let this persist. The CIA funded a small, unknown startup named Google, the NSA quietly started subverting the very infrastructure of all of the internet and the money sacks started hiding information behind paywalls and rolling out armies of lawyers to enforce their obsolete-over-night business models. Fast forward a couple of years and the internet has turned from a place of infinite learning and deep human connection to a place of infinite surveillance, disinformation and shallow gamified social interaction. Something important has happened though: the centralized mainstream media failed to adapt and they are dying. Those in power failed to recognize their importance as a tool for control until it was too late and this is why we will win. Oh, and we have strong encryption.
The magnitude of the surveillance operations by state and corporate players alike in tandem with an increasingly aggressive barrage of propaganda tells a story: they are convinced that they can only keep us under control by total control and monitoring of our access to information. They are trying to prevent a new age of enlightenment because they've seen what a powerful amplifier an unattenuated internet can be, melting their informational advantage and putting them on equal footing with the unwashed masses. Just like the clerics of the middle ages, who tried everything in their power to prevent the masses from reading their sacred dox, for the masses would no longer believe the bullshit they made up in the name of god.
I think they're truly shitting their pants about what would happen, were everyone able to anonymously share information and freely speak their mind. There would be no more means of coercing secrecy from those with a conscience having to execute their dirty deeds. It would spark an era of whistleblowers followed by an era of finally holding the manipulative bastards hiding behind a corporate veil or sovereign immunity to account for their crimes against humanity.
Even those apathetic to "things they can't change" are slowly waking up to the fact that there is a real world that is vastly different from the fairy tales those in power feed them and that they are starting to get curious, because curiosity is human nature. The democratization of publishing and the interlinked decline of old media as a trusted source of information can't be undone. The power structures of old have trouble adapting to a virtual world where their traditional methods of control are crumbling. The Goliaths are swaying. We need to give them a good shove.
Social media in its current form is a failed experiment, started for all the wrong reasons. We need to take it from Zuck & Co in order to take back the net and its culture of human interaction. This may be the hardest part because a large part of the population has been literally and deliberately addicted to it. But meanwhile it might backfire on the elites as they are trying to adapt to the virtual space, taking their propaganda and disinformation there. While it looks to be somewhat effective, they were late to this party and most Facebook users still remember how it was being manipulated only by evil corporate overlords, but not also evil power hungry politicians and money feudalism. The legacy oligarchs and the crooked politicians in their pocket have failed to grasp that netizens have gone global and are able to ingest news and viewpoints from beyond their sphere of influence - they may preach global but really only care about their territorial claim as accepted by the other evil oligarchs. Now anyone has the power to publish, to refute their lies, to point out their attempts of manipulation. Anyone has the power to fact check in a matter of seconds. It seems that their only helpless idea is to bombard us with distractions and FUD, hoping to drown out the signal in their cacophony of noise. Ironically, it's the dying old media, stalwarts of propaganda service, that are helping educate the broader populace in media literacy and critical thinking by screaming "Fake News!" in a desperate attempt to stay relevant. Even the unwashed masses on Facebook are starting to use the internet as a tool for active interaction with information, they have disconnected from the TV trance of being fed what to think. They are learning what getting hit with a disinfo or astroturfing campaign looks like, because old media helpfully points it to them in a desperate bid to establish the internet as a place of lies where only they can provide guidance with their truths.
The social media hotspots that are being invaded by FUD trolls and disinfo professionals were their digital living rooms, their utopia, and they likely resent the collective governments of the world waltzing in there and stirring shit up. They might soon be looking for a new utopia, just like those of us who saw actual internet utopia before the eternal torrent of shit started. Their ideals and wants may be different, but their motivation is the same.
We are the engineers that make the net work and shape its future, we are the experts the masses turn to when they don't understand how it works, we are the trusted confidantes fixing their devices with all of their intimate private data on them. We built this place and we told the masses coming after us what was going on while they were still in bliss, marveling at the wonders of technology improving their quality of life. They were not ready to listen, but they are just having a rude awakening and now they might.
We must learn from history how our space was turned to shit and build something better. It must be resilient to censorship, surveillance and adversarial participants and free from centralized control. I2P [wikipedia.org] is a good start. We must build a new space for us there, or on top of a similiar technology, shielded from prying eyes, greedy fucks fucking with human interaction to turn it into a magic cash generator and information warlords trying to drown out the truth in a torrent of lies. We probably need a new browser to go along with the network, with a focus on privacy while simultaneously enabling clear and darknet browsing, ease of use, and the ability to safely display modern web standards. One that is free from corporate influence and anti-technologies *cough... Mozilla*.
When the masses get hit with the next big scandal about how they are being manipulated for control and to fleece them for all they're worth in their personal space, we can tell them about our cool new place and how to get there. They will come take a look, because they will be curious and they trust us. If it's good enough, they will bring their friends. We need to educate them about the benefits and opportunities of anonymity and how to stay safe in this new virtual space defaulting to distrust but with total freedom. They can make their own choice of whether to embrace it and be free of their RL identity or flock to the first social site and self-doxx. Or they can have it both. This will be very interesting to watch how they decide.
If we succeed in creating a perfect storm, naturally the money sacks will want in on it, but without being able to lobby or bully their way to the top or buy out the competition, with no leverage of their own, they will not gain much relevance in this space or take influence in its future development. They will be able to buy slices of our infrastructure or add infrastructure of their own to our network, but they will have to compete with established, trustworthy alternatives on our terms. They will be forced to come up with a radically good product and fair monetization model to persist. Their investment of money or resources will be beneficial to the network either way, so as long as they behave, we can welcome them I guess. We can have our cake and eat it too.
We will have our utopia back, and we can achieve much more. We just need to stop bitching and moaning about the status quo and start taking the first steps towards a better future. An information age delivering on its promises. Take a leap of faith!
 Here are some ideas of how to build a better web in the dark:
We have the chance to mirror all of the sites and services of use or mass appeal that are capitalist-controlled on the clearnet, on our own terms, before the web corporatocracy even notices. We can put all the information we can liberate from for-pay academia publishing, copyrighted or forbidden books or trade secrets revealed to us under NDA there, for free. We can infringe on any and all trademarks and "IP" to our heart's content, we can make fake facebook and twatter buttons that direct to our own, free implementations to ease transition for those of challenged understanding or high inertia. We can speak freely without fear of repercussion by an intolerant society, draconian laws or secret agencies. We can build social networks free from censorship, shadow profiles, Skinner Box addiction mechanisms and enforced filter bubbles. We can build decentralized news outlets without inherent bias, with crowd-sourced reporting and fact checking and we can build forums for open discussion of even unpopular ideas and few rules. We can build repositories to share code and software, without a care for software patents and without fear of a corporate buyout and monetization of our idealism. We can build places to upload cute pictures of kittens. And porn. And we won't be getting creepy mails titled "You might also be interested in the following products" from Amazon, offering trinkets connected to our weird sexual fetish after visiting those sites.
All free as in libre. Of course, free as in beer would be even more awesome, but we'll have to find out how that works taking avantage of "free" commercial services. Voluntary donations, crowdfunding or micro payments seem to work for sites with quality content, we need to trial this at scale and work out the kinks. As a parallel model, we can build crowd-sourced compute and data clouds and CDNs where everyone donates a configurable amount of CPU time, bandwidth and storage but noone has central control. Instead, for their compute resources, everyone receives a proportional amount of tokens they can freely allocate to worthy projects promoting themselves in a central directory. Making informed decisions can be enabled by semantic search and built-in comparison of offered features along with the TOS (restricted to a selectable set of modular clauses written in natural language and devoid of the usual anti-consumer bullshit and weasel words, with controversial/questionable clauses marked in red.) There should be a space for user reviews that themselves can be grades for accuracy by other users and a transparent process for resolving possible violations of terms.
A set percentage of donated resources should be kept for community purposes to be allocated by a trusted, elected council. A set percentage of bandwidth available should be reserved for improving the network (in I2P, everyone is a router). Good projects will succeed in growing by way of user satisfaction or fail by trying to force unacceptable features or policies. A lot of a little can become huge, we'll have a community-powered Amazon EC2. But with the potential to grow much larger.
We could make it so that users can also allocate some of their tokens to an offering of for-pay rentable capacity so those willing to spend real cash to kickstart their project can do so, and those with lots of spare resources can make some money. It might be a necessary concession to capitalism, but we should make sure to clearly mark the commercial projects as such in the public directory and make it impossible to allocate resource tokens to them. At the same time, community-endorsed projects shall be prohibited from monetizing in any way. This way, capital investors are prevented from gaming the voting system in a bid to try to induce network effects by fake community endorsement donating a large amount of resources and then self-voting. We need to trial this good and hard and refine the system until it's bulletproof. When we're ready, we just wait, probably not for long, until...
 The drug dealers are already there, if that floats your boat ;)
I like the message. If you have Sunday services, I might like to attend. At least sign me up for your newsletter, alright?
But, I have problems with your message. Where to start? How to phrase it? Hmmm . . .
Let me start with I2P. Been there, pretty often. Has it changed recently? It's probably been more than a year since I checked it out, that's time for a lot of change. On a typical day, I was able to connect to maybe a couple dozen sites, that were almost universally neglected. That is, some message had been put up, in the form of a web page, and it stuck there, forever, without any kind of updates. Worse, finding sites with meaning is something of a chore, because you have to sift among some of the worst shit on the internet - child porn shit.
It's been accepted that if we want our anonymity, then we have to protect the anonymity of the worst of the worst. But I do get tired of clicking on something that sounds like it might be interesting, only to find that it's more CP.
Next . . .
When the masses . . . manipulated for control
When the masses . . . manipulated for control
Sorry, I strongly disagree with that. The masses don't give a damn. You don't know how sorry I am that you are wrong, but you are wrong there. The masses simply don't CARE. You could take a hundred random people off of the street, and PAY THEM to attend a seminar exposing how crooked the system is - and 97 of them will shrug their shoulders, and go right back to whatever they were doing. They simply don't give a damn. 24/7 surveillance? Many of those damned fools are actually PAYING the surveillers to surveil them! "Oh, but Alexa only listens when . . . " People are that freaking STUPID! Those who aren't that stupid, just don't care!
When the white man arrived in the New World, they dangled shiny baubles in front of the native's eyes, and used those baubles to "purchase" huge tracts of land, among other things. That is the way things work today, in real life. The tech companies, as well as government, dangle some shinies in front of the masses, and the masses feel like they have something wonderful. "Oh, I can play Angry Birds on my phone to kill the time, and all I had to do was surrender my privacy!" Fokkin' idiots.
I'll give you this much: There almost certainly is some tipping point, at which the public (or at least a significant portion of the public) decides that "enough is enough". Some catalytic event may very well prove cathartic, and motivate Joe Sixpack to take charge of his computer, communications, social life, news sources, and whatever else. At this point in time, I can't imagine what that event might be.
One of the things you need to consider is, government and it's agencies never stop learning. Jane Q. Public stops learning the day she leaves high school. You know as well as I do, that most kids toss that silly mortar board aside on their way out the high school doors, they forget 80% of what they were taught, books, pencils, and all the tools of the academic are tossed into the trash, they get drunk on their asses, and work hard to stay drunk for the rest of their lives.
But, government never stops learning. They are listening, looking, prying, and nosing around - and they seldom forget a lesson. What's more, government uses it's collective knowledge to isolate and cull individuals who come to their attention. It is never "government vs the people", it's "government vs Wayne Witless" - and Witless almost always loses.
I could go on and on.
Maybe I'll fire up I2P and see if things have changed or not.
Oh - before I post: I invite your attention to gab.ai It is a fine example of something "new". Over the years, I've stuck my nose into, and even registered, all manner of "new" things. Google+, Facebook, Twitter - I was there early for all of them, only to be disappointed. I almost missed getting here, on Soylent, because so many "new" and "different" things have failed outright, or turned to crap very soon. Gab is one of the newest "something new" - but I haven't seen anything really worthy of my attention. Everything is rapidly pulled down to the lowest common denominator, and that is how people like it. You might beat government, if you're really really good, and really really lucky. But, you're not going to beat the masses. If you succeed in building out that new technology that you hint at - the public will move in, and shit all over the place. They are like fucking pigeons!
Sorry, I'm not in the preaching business. No sunday services from me. I'm in the humanism business, so maybe I should start printing some spiffy newsletters.
I2P has its peculiarities. I only recently got into it and found that some important non-obvious information was not documented in any of the official places. Apparently they have ironed out a lot of bugs and network DOS vectors since last year though.
Things they should tell you on the front page:
The more serious participants run their's on a VPS or if they have good residential lines, a Raspi at home and these never go down except for major version upgrades. They achieve respectable bandwidths (the only hard number I remember right now was a Raspi running at 500/500KB/s on the Java client, the VPS crowd may have been getting significantly more, check reddit), fast enough for streaming video and serious downloading.
My test setup is on my shitty residential line, running the unofficial i2pd daemon (C++ codebase). After initial head scratching and disappointment I clawed together the above info for a proper setup, then just let it do its thing for a week while seeding a couple torrents. When I checked back then, network performance was acceptable.
The network itself is still pretty small in terms of number of nodes, but the number of sites seems to grow steadily. Yes, it still has its fair share of defunct or derelict sites listed in directories, but I'm finding enough worth exploring.
My general impression of I2P is a blast of nostalgia. Currently, the whole experience feels eerily like the early web 1.0 ride. There are no search engines, only manually updated link lists to guide you, speeds can be abysmal and the incantations required for a proper connection are byzantine. But it's free as in beer and free as in libre, the population is mostly idealists sharing a dream of a truly free society.
Well yeah and the drug and arms dealers and kiddie porn traffickers in the dark corners. I don't mind the dealers, they provide a product for voluntary consumers and the online version of the market seems to be a lot safer than street dealers in ensuring consumers get exactly what they want in a decent, predictable quality. Net benefit to society in my book. The kiddie porn traffickers are bad of course, but I think we should differentiate between consumers and producers. Consumers are inflicted with a mental illness that is so stigmatized that safely getting treatment without exposing themselves to a lynchmob can be difficult. Giving them a place to release their urges without harming anyone is also a net benefit in my book. The producers need to get more law enforcement attention, sting operations with proposed IRL meets should be pretty effective. Bonus: no backdoors in encryption necessary.
And there's a lot of a blank canvas, open space in need of a community to populate it and fill it with content. There's lots of work to be done until it will look like home. But the tech is ready now IMO and arguably better than TOR. Exciting!
But, I have problems with your message.
I can relate to your criticism, but here we have the chance to try and start over. It's a gamble on humanity being able to save itself with nothing to lose but everything to win. The only losing move is not to play.
Thanks for mentioning gab.ai. I wasn't aware of it but this ED article [encyclopediadramatica.rs] provided some insights while being hillarious.
Trust me, you can scream. Because they haven't killed you. RIP Seth Rich aka Panda -- a true patriot. Democrat National Committee, please sue Seth's estate. Because he leaked the truth about your Party!!!
We get All Trump All The Time all over the interwebs as it is. We don't need another source letting us know "Oh, the fat orange sack of Oompa-Loompa shit from Hell said THIS idiotic thing today" here too, okay?
You just gave the troll what it wants most