LinuxQuestions.org - [US politics] [unfortunately concerns us all] Censorship

- General (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/general-10/)

- - [US politics] [unfortunately concerns us all] Censorship - Alternative Data (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/general-10/%5Bus-politics%5D-%5Bunfortunately-concerns-us-all%5D-censorship-alternative-data-4175598476/)

Quote:

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs (Post 5669816)

The biggest change that I see happening ... really, across the world ... is: a willingness to challenge. It's as though people suddenly woke up for the first time in their lives, and started being willing to ask tough questions about what has been being spoon-fed to them for such a very long time. This both in terms of information, and in (inter-)national policy.

In other words – "yes, The Donald appears to be quite the buffoon" – but – "the American people decisively picked him." (And when Hillary whimpered to the Electoral College, she lost more votes there, and gained none at all.) Why? Also: people are seeking out and publishing this so-called "alternative data," even to the point of directly challenging "official US Government sources" of it. After decades of "contented stupor lethargy," they are suddenly ... very active.

Oh, they are challenging alright: Angry Mob Storms Senator's Dinner Meeting Over Trump Cabinet Votes

Quote:

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs (Post 5669849)

I expect that "cable companies" – specifically Comcast, which has managed to alienate just about every customer they ever had, sending people in droves to the phone companies and so forth – would instead prefer to turn web-sites into the one thing that they know: "a television show."

For example, LQ would have to pay Comcast, say, $10,000 a month in order for its "programming" to be "aired" to any Comcast subscriber. Comcast would also be able to block "television content" from web sites unless its subscribers "paid for them."

And, so on.

But, I think, "it ain't never gonna happen."

The FCC's "net neutrality rules," which cast internet service as a public utility, were, I think, "a mere first step." There will, in time, be true American law which defines the role of the internet as a "common carrier," following precisely the rules that now govern telephone service.

I also know that the reality in China is not actually that there is "the great firewall." There are lots of ways to get through it. However, China is a vast country and Internet service is much less universal there – at this time. In general, there's a very big difference between "the official China" and what happens at various parts of the enormous region that is ostensibly under Government control. Change happens in a very different way, but change is inexorably occurring.

Well with Comcast which owns NBC - they can do all they can there to filter out any information they see fit - same with their online presence on Youtube and such. I still feel some kind of China-like policy that the media will try to incorporate with the US gov. This does sound like a conspiracy, but stranger things have happened, and it is no secret that you have also corporate shills probably paid to go around and try to get even a youtuber taken down.

Quote:

Originally Posted by michaelk (Post 5669858)

At least in the US the 1st amendment i.e freedom of speech does not include the internet. Whatever site you post your opinions on has the legal right to sensor and in the case of LQ Jeremy is king.

While few of the alternative facts are mostly true they are not more accurate IMHO. What concerns me is Trump's right hand men which seem to be making all the policies i.e. Stephen Miller and Steve Bannon.

The whole 1st Amendment is an interesting argument here, because at one point it was discussed that the phone company itself cannot disconnect your service based on your own political views, that you talk to someone over the phone. In the case of LQ which is just a site, yes it is Jeremy's site and has the right to close down any thread. Still that is 1 site, but again an ISP has no right to terminate a person's service because he/she is either on the left or right. Again what worries me though is that there are efforts clearly in silencing a certain viewpoint whether it is on the left or right - and has reached levels I only see would be done in China.

-edit

I thought the BBC was better than this, but I suppose not :cry:

H.A Goodman - BBC SPREADS FAKE NEWS ABOUT WIKILEAKS: Ignores DWS Being Fired from DNC

I think it would be a disaster if the net neutrality decision was repealed. Comcast should be severely punished if they are found again to be deliberately throttling other services/users content. However, AFAIK that is different from content posted on their websites.

Quote:

Originally Posted by michaelk (Post 5669875)

Comcast has been playing around with the idea of data caps, and it is no secret. The problem is that if you are someone that has 'cut the chord' from tv, and just use the internet for your primary source of say video (netflix, etc) - then you are essentially stifled in the sense on how and where you get your entertainment, which can also affect how and where you get your news as well.

On a tangent: Since I did tech support for Verizon - at one point Verizon would send out notices about people going over a certain threshold of data, but there were no punitive actions, or anything of that sort. If you were a Verizon customer on their fiber network, and ended up say averaging a few terabytes in less than a month, they would take notice, and rightfully so - and would urge you to get a business account. That I can actually understand - because there are different terms of use for a bus vs a residential account. Never mind that I would always encounter customers calling in complaining about their services are down and they have a business from their home on a residential account, WHICH they would state over the phone - and if you read your TOS/AUP from your ISP, most would not like you running a business on a residential account - with one obvious reason is money, second though there are technical reasons too - although that is a grey area since none that I know of were terminated from their service by stating to an agent such things.

Back to the main topic - even if one say is not using anywhere near the data of say a cap - the fact that still there is one is also worry some. On the one hand I can see the argument about capacity - but even that seems like a flimsy argument at best, if you have competent network admins that can configure equipment and do proper load balancing - and not just corporate morons from the top refusing to upgrade equipment because 'its too expensive, so we're just going to keep rolling out data caps because its more profitable.'

Now that I think about some I have seen where Cell phone providers do throttle services if you exceed your data cap. Although you then pay for the overages too. I also remember getting a data usage summary from my ISP in the distant past but since I was not close their data limit I did not pay much attention. So you might be correct...

Quote:

Originally Posted by michaelk (Post 5669875)

Well, it's going to have to stop being an administrative decision by the FCC. It's going to have to be a law, if not an international treaty convention.

Its bad enough, that even our government representatives are either knowingly or unknowingly sheltered from correct information: Cali Rep: impeach Trump because Putin invaded Korea.

Then again, she is the government so any intelligence is a contradiction in terms - the problem is of course this kind of stupidity is what can escalate to all of us getting killed possibly.

Does The CIA Spread Fake News?, hrmm lemme think about that one for a second... :p

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeebizz (Post 5671577)

RT: Trump vs Spies: US president blasts intel over 'illegal leaks' of classified data

You know, it's a bit depressing to me to see this quality of coverage and reporting coming from a Russian news agency – whose "RT" programming is, I think, most excellent – is we heard far better than you say that any of our own and we know where. They're saying you live things that the American media does not say – including the not-so-cryptic threat that was said by a Member of Congress! :eek:

But, it's all true – and, Trump is right. The "intelligence services," also, have become thoroughly politicized. It is very obvious to me that there are "bad apples" among them who not only have ready access to highly sensitive information, but who don't mind sharing it ... with the press, and/or with "leakers" such as Snowden, Manning, and so-on.

Just for political purposes.

It seems to me now that for a very long time there have been institutions throughout "The Beltway" who long ago decided that they were, in fact, a law unto themselves. And that they "weren't on the same team" as the Congress and/or the Executive. They had allies in Congress (such as the one who not-so overtly threatened the President with assassination during this clip), who seem to feel the same way.

"I'm sorry, but ..." that information is classified for a reason. And if you now have access to it, it's only because you're supposed to have demonstrated that you know what that reason is. And only because you swore to safeguard it.

Obviously there are plenty of people who still cannot stand the fact that "Hillary Clinton lost," and they don't seem to mind compromising the security of the nation because of it – just because ... they can.

... and there also reporters who think nothing of making use of such materials, even though they know or should have known that the information was unlawfully obtained.

"Knowledge Is Power." During both World Wars, this was drilled into the heads of every citizen. I know, having visited the National Cryptology Museum at Fort Meade, that those posters are still up in the hallways there, with the added line: "The Message Is Still The Same." :tisk:

If you think that the information that has been entrusted to you is "yours to use," then I'd be in favor of you having ten years in solitary confinement just to think about it.

And-d-d-d... if you are a reporter who receives such information, knowing it to be classified, I think that you should be in that same cell with your informant. "The ends do not justify the means." Anytime information security is breached at this level, innocent people often die.

And, anytime information is falsified, as happened several times during both Korea and Vietnam, we wind up with sculptures on the Mall which ought not to be there. With the names of young men who should have been grandfathers by now. Brave young men who were denied that opportunity because of y-o-u.

:mad:

Quote: