Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Freedom of Speech in the USA today

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Freedom of Speech in the USA today

    YOU!!!!! CAN'T!!!!! SAY!!!!! THAT!!!!!

    In 1964, I was kidnapped by the US government, though they tried to make it sound legitimate by calling it THE DRAFT! Fellow draftees and I used to discuss such issues. And, almost all of the draftees agreed that the draft was the involuntary servitude prohibited by the Constitution. If we had been their voluntarily, we'd have enlisted.

    When you were inducted, the men were told to stand in a large room with a number of officials observing. Then, we were told to take one step forward, raise our right hand and be sworn in. As draftees, we were told that taking that one step forward meant we were there voluntarily. What garbage. We all knew very well if we did not take that one step forward, we would be charged with a crime and spend up to five years in Fort Leavenworth. There is no way that sort of penalty for failing to comply makes you a volunteer because you complied.

    We also admitted we were chicken-**** cowards. If we weren't we would have refused to go. But, two years and hope we didn't get killed in VN was our cop-out rather than the certain five years in prison.

    Since our induction oath involved the usual promise to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, we also at times discussed such things are our Constitutional rights, such as freedom of speech. Men read the Constitution and discussed it in the barracks.

    So, it is possible my view of freedom of speech might be different from those who never served in the military, and of course even different from those who actually saw combat, which I did not. Your views, in my opinion, are definitely changed by your personal experiences.

    I believe in full freedom of speech. Though I personally hate racism with a passion, yes, I believe people have a right to say hateful racist things. Recently, I saw a reference to a SCOTUS ruling that said the same thing. I even believe man-hating feminists have the right to say all the hateful things about men they have been saying for the last 50 years. Of course, only as long as they understand men have the right to answer back.

    At the same time, others have a right not to listen. And, I believe in personal property rights. The "owners" of a forum, such as AVFM, have the right to control freedom of speech on their forum. If the duly appointed moderators want to, they have every right to delete this posting. And, people have the right not to make wedding cakes for ceremonies that offend their personal religion. But, no one has the right to stop freedom of speech in "public" places, or in private forum.

    That includes Nazi and white supremacist speech. If I hear the vile N word, I am going away as far as I can, as fast as I can. That is my right not to hear.

    Am I saying those Neo-nazis and white supremacists had the right to their rally? Of course. Freedom of speech means, ahem, freedom of speech.

    The idiots of the MSM are doing a really good imitation of a band of hyenas trying to eat a deer on the African veldt, angry at Trump because he said both sides did wrong. Except I am even more so then he is. The other group specifically planned to stop the Neo-Nazis from their freedom of speech rally, and specifically planned to use violence to do so.

    But, Trump is a monster because he said they also did something wrong? Of course they did. They conspired (look up that word in a legal dictionary and don't bore me with the usual sarcastic comments about aluminum hats) to do violence to stop the freedom of speech of the Neo Nazis and white supremacists. They knew very well there was going to be illegal violence, because it was planned well ahead.

    If what the Neo-Nazis were planning was horrid, the other side should have stopped it dead, not by violence, but by totally ignoring the event. No counter-protest; no press coverage; total black-out. They have their freedom of speech rally to no one. That is the Constitutional way to deal with hate speech. Not planned violence and say they had it coming.

    So, why do I feel strongly about FOS? First,as I said, they took two years of my life from me, allegedly to defend it. But, also I have known racist people, including my own mother. It is my belief that the differences in intelligence of racial groups is a result of family structure. But, when I say that, the racists tell me, "Where is your data?"

    And, they are correct. There is no data. No one is allowed to even discuss racial differences, not to mention doing the in-depth studies to prove the difference is social structure.

    So, young, gullible fools, noting we have no data can be suckered into a hateful view of race. That is really dumb!

  • #2
    Originally posted by polite_disagreement View Post
    When you were inducted, the men were told to stand in a large room with a number of officials observing. Then, we were told to take one step forward, raise our right hand and be sworn in. As draftees, we were told that taking that one step forward meant we were there voluntarily. What garbage. We all knew very well if we did not take that one step forward, we would be charged with a crime and spend up to five years in Fort Leavenworth. There is no way that sort of penalty for failing to comply makes you a volunteer because you complied.
    Have you ever heard of the George Gordon School of Common Law?

    George Gordon died in 2014, but he used to teach a common law school in Missouri as well as producing a long series of podcasts that discuss different issues around the law.

    This is purely anecdotal, but I remember one where he was talking about someone he knew who was draft. The gentleman reported as he was required, and when they said take one stop forward and raise your right hand, he took two steps back, one to the side and raised his left hand. So the inducted the rest of the group and kept him behind screaming in his face about how he was going to Leavenworth if he didn't do his "duty", blah blah. The guy wouldn't budge.

    Eventually they put him on a bus back home telling him that he'd probably be arrested and sent to Leavenworth in the near future. The MPs and police never came.

    I think you only go to prison if you don't report on demand, not if you refuse to "volunteer" once you report. Of course if you're going to refuse, you need to be prepared to go to Leavenworth over it, but I always thought it was interesting.
    "...but when she goes off you, she will not just walk away, she will walk away with your fucking skin in a jar." ~~ DoctorRandomercam
    "The laws of man, they don't apply when blood gets in a woman's eye" - The Black Keys

    Comment


    • #3
      We were cowards and did not want to find out if it was true.

      I hated the military. Some can live in that environment, and others cannot. I could not.

      But, I am not going to say I had no personal benefit from it. A really intelligent man at work commented how different the veterans were, from those who never left home.

      One example was the veterans were much more likely to travel far and wide. Those who never left home often never traveled except once with the kids to Yellowstone, or something like that. We vets learned a different view of the world. I have been to the Arctic Ocean, and live in Mexico. When I was in high school, I never thought I'd ever know a black person or a Mexican. Yeah, stupid. As the old saying goes, now I are one.

      That smart man I mentioned, took two weeks alone every year. He would pull out to the highway on his small acreage, and at the highway would decide left or right. And, he would do that for two weeks. Once he ended up in New Orleans; once in Wisconsin.

      A Navy vet would climb on his big motorcycle and go to a gathering in Florida. The non-vets almost never did anything like that.

      But, though I got some benefit I did not like the Army.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by polite_disagreement View Post
        At the same time, others have a right not to listen. And, I believe in personal property rights. The "owners" of a forum, such as AVFM, have the right to control freedom of speech on their forum. If the duly appointed moderators want to, they have every right to delete this posting. And, people have the right not to make wedding cakes for ceremonies that offend their personal religion. But, no one has the right to stop freedom of speech in "public" places, or in private forum.

        Great post, really good.

        One issue which is raised but not really addressed-- certainly not in legal terms or legal precedent other than going back to traditional property rights and such, which may or may not apply in the digital world, or in certain circumstances, depending upon how services are advertised and what the understanding is when people sign up.... And that is where does the idea of "Public" start and stop. In the old world, it was pretty easy to point to and delineate "Public Spaces". Over here, over there, the public square, the public building-- whatever it is, it starts over here, continues to over there, and everything inside the box is "Public".

        Nowadays, we have shifted our mode of operation and much of our social paradigm to the "online space". The Internet, collectively, is largely considered "Public", and yet it is comprised individually of lots of little locally-owned segments. (In fact, as a topic for a separate discussion, this is really one of the chief issues surrounding the notion of "Net Neutrality") And certainly when you put up your own little web page, and maybe a discussion forum (such as the one you're reading now), it is typically owned or controlled by an individual or small entity, and used to interact with a small group of people and perhaps moderated in some tightly controlled way. The range of "freedom" is typically discussed on the way in the door, and users are generally told what the scope of their conversational freedom can be, is.

        But here's the thing. There are number of companies such as Facebook, YouTube, MySpace, Twitter (to some lesser degree), even Google, among others who have positioned themselves as "forums for all" with a generally (supposedly) liberal policy for topics as long as they aren't actually illegal-- as is *legally* defined somewhere. So when they get millions and millions of people signing up for them and using them every day in their everyday conversations and social activities-- Facebook is transitioning / transcending the model of the "small privately owned web forum" and really positioning themselves as the new age (digital age) "Public Street". In which case a whole new layer of concern and tolerance for various types of communication is required-- and legally imposed and guaranteed by the United States Constitution (for US users, and likely similar arrangements for users in other areas with laws that govern such things).

        The fact is that this concept hasn't really been tested much in the digital age, though it certainly has in the "telecommunications age". That is exactly what happened to the telephone companies-- they went from being small, privately-owned entities that had a great deal of control over what and how their users were able to interact with the system, to "Public Carriers" with specific officially-mandated requirements of what they could and could not do to facilitate and interfere with "Public" Communication. And this has been written into law for quite a few decades now-- I'm guess probably at least 40-50 years or more. So there is a lot of already established legal precedent covering the ins and outs of all that-- combined with the publishing and magazine industries which have similar issues when dealing with the editing (editorializing) and publication of their various products. All of this isn't just idle talk, it's actual legally established precedent and various legally proscribed service models that these companies *MUST* follow in order to stay in compliance with the law. And again, presumably other countries have similar rules that must be adhered to when operating there.

        So companies like Facebook started out and grew rapidly with the "small privately-owned forum / content" concept. Which is a perfectly acceptable model-- legally they were probably in the "Publisher" mode since they don't produce content of their own-- if they do, then they would straddle the "Editor" / "Publisher" models and would have appropriate delineations in their company structure to accommodate the requirements of the various models.

        But now, due to their overwhelming popularity and the sheer number of people that access the site and do so with the expectation that they are free to say whatever they want to say as long as it falls within the legal restrictions of their respective countries, one can make the legal challenge that Facebook, like the telephone companies before it, has transcended its original mode and model and is now operating as a de-facto Public Carrier. And if you can get the government to declare them as one-- they *IMMEDIATELY* must follow a whole new standard of *MUCH STRICTER* guidelines and rules governing what they can censor / delete / remove / alter / etc. and what they cannot.

        The more companies like Facebook fuck with the various groups-- particularly the marginalized groups, or groups that are not in favor with the public-- the easier it will be for one of these marginalized groups to take them to court-- and very rapidly ascend to the Supreme Court level and have this issue decided once and for all. And once the precedent is set for one, it will immediately be set for all of them. Lawsuits will quickly follow back and forth of course to hammer out the details and extents of the various rulings. But I personally do not think that Facebook is in a very good position here to argue that it has been a good steward of the public trust and is operating "fairly" to the benefit of all parties involved. But rather, an *EXCEPTIONALLY EASY* case can be made that they are NOT.

        They of course will bring legions of lawyers to bear to argue their case-- but the case that they have transcended their initial operating modes and have reached the point of being "Public Carriers" is, at this point, pretty easy to make. By practically anybody. My dog could do it-- if I had a dog...

        It goes without saying that such a decision would be an *ENORMOUS* victory to both the various marginalized groups (such as the MHRM) and others, as well as a huge validation of the concept of Free Speech, Free Association, and all of the principles of liberty that this country has been founded upon.
        FEMINISM is a HATE GROUP - Feminists are HATEFUL PEOPLE
        It's time to call it out for what it is.



        The World of Men - Men's Rights / MGTOW / Sites of Interest to Men

        http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showt...nterest-to-Men

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by mr_e View Post
          Great post, really good.

          One issue which is raised but not really addressed-- certainly not in legal terms or legal precedent other than going back to traditional property rights and such, which may or may not apply in the digital world, or in certain circumstances, depending upon how services are advertised and what the understanding is when people sign up.... And that is where does the idea of "Public" start and stop. In the old world, it was pretty easy to point to and delineate "Public Spaces". Over here, over there, the public square, the public building-- whatever it is, it starts over here, continues to over there, and everything inside the box is "Public".

          Nowadays, we have shifted our mode of operation and much of our social paradigm to the "online space". The Internet, collectively, is largely considered "Public", and yet it is comprised individually of lots of little locally-owned segments. (In fact, as a topic for a separate discussion, this is really one of the chief issues surrounding the notion of "Net Neutrality") And certainly when you put up your own little web page, and maybe a discussion forum (such as the one you're reading now), it is typically owned or controlled by an individual or small entity, and used to interact with a small group of people and perhaps moderated in some tightly controlled way. The range of "freedom" is typically discussed on the way in the door, and users are generally told what the scope of their conversational freedom can be, is.

          But here's the thing. There are number of companies such as Facebook, YouTube, MySpace, Twitter (to some lesser degree), even Google, among others who have positioned themselves as "forums for all" with a generally (supposedly) liberal policy for topics as long as they aren't actually illegal-- as is *legally* defined somewhere. So when they get millions and millions of people signing up for them and using them every day in their everyday conversations and social activities-- Facebook is transitioning / transcending the model of the "small privately owned web forum" and really positioning themselves as the new age (digital age) "Public Street". In which case a whole new layer of concern and tolerance for various types of communication is required-- and legally imposed and guaranteed by the United States Constitution (for US users, and likely similar arrangements for users in other areas with laws that govern such things).

          The fact is that this concept hasn't really been tested much in the digital age, though it certainly has in the "telecommunications age". That is exactly what happened to the telephone companies-- they went from being small, privately-owned entities that had a great deal of control over what and how their users were able to interact with the system, to "Public Carriers" with specific officially-mandated requirements of what they could and could not do to facilitate and interfere with "Public" Communication. And this has been written into law for quite a few decades now-- I'm guess probably at least 40-50 years or more. So there is a lot of already established legal precedent covering the ins and outs of all that-- combined with the publishing and magazine industries which have similar issues when dealing with the editing (editorializing) and publication of their various products. All of this isn't just idle talk, it's actual legally established precedent and various legally proscribed service models that these companies *MUST* follow in order to stay in compliance with the law. And again, presumably other countries have similar rules that must be adhered to when operating there.

          So companies like Facebook started out and grew rapidly with the "small privately-owned forum / content" concept. Which is a perfectly acceptable model-- legally they were probably in the "Publisher" mode since they don't produce content of their own-- if they do, then they would straddle the "Editor" / "Publisher" models and would have appropriate delineations in their company structure to accommodate the requirements of the various models.

          But now, due to their overwhelming popularity and the sheer number of people that access the site and do so with the expectation that they are free to say whatever they want to say as long as it falls within the legal restrictions of their respective countries, one can make the legal challenge that Facebook, like the telephone companies before it, has transcended its original mode and model and is now operating as a de-facto Public Carrier. And if you can get the government to declare them as one-- they *IMMEDIATELY* must follow a whole new standard of *MUCH STRICTER* guidelines and rules governing what they can censor / delete / remove / alter / etc. and what they cannot.

          The more companies like Facebook fuck with the various groups-- particularly the marginalized groups, or groups that are not in favor with the public-- the easier it will be for one of these marginalized groups to take them to court-- and very rapidly ascend to the Supreme Court level and have this issue decided once and for all. And once the precedent is set for one, it will immediately be set for all of them. Lawsuits will quickly follow back and forth of course to hammer out the details and extents of the various rulings. But I personally do not think that Facebook is in a very good position here to argue that it has been a good steward of the public trust and is operating "fairly" to the benefit of all parties involved. But rather, an *EXCEPTIONALLY EASY* case can be made that they are NOT.

          They of course will bring legions of lawyers to bear to argue their case-- but the case that they have transcended their initial operating modes and have reached the point of being "Public Carriers" is, at this point, pretty easy to make. By practically anybody. My dog could do it-- if I had a dog...

          It goes without saying that such a decision would be an *ENORMOUS* victory to both the various marginalized groups (such as the MHRM) and others, as well as a huge validation of the concept of Free Speech, Free Association, and all of the principles of liberty that this country has been founded upon.
          Some fascinating points, and angles about the issue of social media companies responsibility as 'public carriers'.

          I think other points about social media need to be taken into account. Users of social media aren't just using them as communication channels, they are creating content on them and tailored for them, content that those platforms don't create or contribute to at all, but massively profit from, in fact that content is the only reason they exist or succeed. There is financial value to that content, it gets measured, the companies even use it as part of their capital valuation (UGC ROI). The user agreements are not just agreements on how to behave and acceptable content, they include legal permissions and rights to the content produced, terms which arguably wouldn't actually survive serious tests in court (http://www.egos.co.uk/FAQ/UNENFORC.HTM). Secondly users don't get services for free, that is just a complete lie, users build their followers as well as their content, their work builds up the popularity, they even pay directly for services to promote their content and channels. Facebook are endlessly advertising pay for views services. But not only inside the platform, social media business are massive benefactors of the marketing people do outside the platform to direct users to it. This network effect where users promote their account on a platform but at the same time promote the platform is massively financially beneficial to platforms.

          You can take this stuff apart from a right wing perspective or a left wing perspective. Personally that don't bother me, what is a factual is that restricting or deleting accounts is stealing the work and value that people have invested in those accounts, and chances are that violations of TOS don't actually stand up as a defence against the theft of that work and value. With the massive power difference between user and provider, and the placid acceptance so far of people who have had accounts, including very successful accounts stolen, it seems unlikely that the case will be tested. However I think it would be good to see it tested in court, in front of jury who are all users of social media, who are made to fully understand the value of their input into platforms, the way it can be easily stolen, and the way that social media corporations, not only benefit from the information they scrape, but also from the marketing and promotion value that users do for that platform. The timing and size of the platforms that are now abusing their users is very telling, these are companies that are assessing their reach as maxed out, that the margins of gaining new users or losing users hardly matters compared to the margins of exploiting those users.

          The business argument is given about pressure on advertisers from users, that's very dubious, though advertisers tend to have kneejerk sensitivity, those numbers can be easily measured and they can be given hard business data to calm their nerves, more telling advertising is carefully demographically targeted (that's the whole point of the endless data mining allegedly...) So advertising is unlikely to be targeted where it isn't wanted by virtue of expected demographics for each channel being pretty well known. This would mean that advertisers in effect don't want to sell product to white men, for example, to the extent that they want to take steps to avoid doing so. The argument is getting ludicrous, and business data has been pretty advanced in these things for a long time. IMHO the only explanation that makes sense, is the infiltration of these businesses by political ideologues getting jobs through affirmative action, then using those jobs to influence the platform's policy. A combination of internal and external political pressure. That is attempting to do the opposite of the market pressure from the users. The algorithms are optimised to max out on market pressure, ergo they have a tendency to rapidly place users into echo chambers, because they so rapidly type users from their selections and the profiles of people they follow. One has to hope that the big platforms belief that they know the user better than the users know themselves is false, and users will desert platforms in large numbers as content they want is denied to them (I'd imagine though large platforms aren't worried about that, edgy political content is still way behind fluffy cats and Tommy slips up on a pile of vomit images) or that significant users actually start taking platforms to court for compensation of the value of their work, both value to their own earnings and the value of the work they have invested in promoting the platform.

          Right wing capitalist democracy minded content providers should basically stop weakly accepting crappy flawed ownership arguments and meekly getting booted off from their earned income and capital investments and start acting like frigging capitalists.
          Last edited by voidspawn; 08-18-2017, 08:24 PM.
          "...especially when it comes to communication, it can be observed, if it is not a negotiation it's a war."
          Originally posted by menrppl2
          Can't live with em, life is great without them.

          Comment


          • #6
            "Volunteer... or we send you to Jail"... should be the motto emblazoned on every state building in big cast bronze block letters.

            I find it humorous (being red pilled) that almost nobody in the world I meet makes that connection. A few suspect, but realize quickly that they are complicit in the immorality, that ALL of the pseudo 'protections' and rank-bottom 'services' the state provides them is based off the state using a gun to make others pay for it. Most of us get more from this extortion than we give... PARTICULARLY women... doubly so because their bodies are not on the thin line, and they are only one bar-trip semen dump away from immunity should it ever come up.

            Add state schooling and its a wonder there are ANY of us who see it, let alone speak against it.

            Freedom of speech is not a 'right'.. 'rights' is a concept used by the state to pretend to limit its own power to use violence. It breaks its own rules all the time, and makes exceptions (hate speech) whenever it gets its hands bound by popular opinion of the tax cattle.

            Speech is expression of thought.. and its the ONLY way you can find out if your thought is wrong or not. You need other's speech to adjust your fucked-up assumptions, to correct, or to reinforce, and progress.

            Stopping speech is about retaining bad ideals... creating false solutions, false morality, and maintaining power via illusion of control/competency while pretty much just resorting to violence.

            Unlike most I am not at all concerned about the size or influence of Google or Youtube. I find it humorous that so many people have given up control of their agency because its convenient to remain tied to big platforms.

            In this day and age.. big digital platforms are worse than yesterday's newspaper... because you cannot even use it to wrap fish in a market.

            The incentives to stay on YouTube and Google (which I've all but purged... using the 'Brave' browser as we speak... DuckDuckGo search tool... Vid.me video platform)... are all absolutely voluntary AND volatile.

            The beauty of capitalism is that it does not care about how big you are, its only how relevant you are to those you claim to provide for. Advertisers are not loyal in the least.. they will hack and split up their investments as many times as it makes sense to be effective.

            The beauty of capitalism is the ability to take down anyone that gets ineffective... say like those who hire incompetent or useless staff to modify search results.

            What Google needs is a bigger lobby group to give them access to laws that prevent capitalism... more accurately... competition. 100 year 'patents' for finger-swipes... multi million dollar 'licensing' applications that take years to complete....

            ... and then the biggest fish of them all... Federal REGULATION.

            People want the state to 'make it easy' to control Google using state regulators... and what an unimaginable horrific bad idea that would be. States don't protect, they only pretend to.

            But I digress. The draft was (and still is) yet another way the state creates false moral justification while only pretending to protect its tax cattle.

            With Trump being threatened with Impeachment by his own party if he does not support yet another 'surge' in Afghanistan next week.. with Bannon (anti-war spine of his presidency) gone from his council.. McMaster is going to send more tax cattle to the slaughter for cash and prizes.. to yet again pretend to ''protect' the tax cattle of the USA farm.

            Will Trump step forward? Probably.. likely because he is under the delusion it will help, but also because he is part if the system now, and the right of power corrupts all.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by voidspawn View Post
              Some fascinating points, and angles about the issue of social media companies responsibility as 'public carriers'.

              I think other points about social media need to be taken into account. Users of social media aren't just using them as communication channels, they are creating content on them and tailored for them, content that those platforms don't create or contribute to at all, but massively profit from, in fact that content is the only reason they exist or succeed. There is financial value to that content, it gets measured, the companies even use it as part of their capital valuation (UGC ROI). The user agreements are not just agreements on how to behave and acceptable content, they include legal permissions and rights to the content produced, terms which arguably wouldn't actually survive serious tests in court (http://www.egos.co.uk/FAQ/UNENFORC.HTM). Secondly users don't get services for free, that is just a complete lie, users build their followers as well as their content, their work builds up the popularity, they even pay directly for services to promote their content and channels. Facebook are endlessly advertising pay for views services. But not only inside the platform, social media business are massive benefactors of the marketing people do outside the platform to direct users to it. This network effect where users promote their account on a platform but at the same time promote the platform is massively financially beneficial to platforms.

              You can take this stuff apart from a right wing perspective or a left wing perspective. Personally that don't bother me, what is a factual is that restricting or deleting accounts is stealing the work and value that people have invested in those accounts, and chances are that violations of TOS don't actually stand up as a defence against the theft of that work and value. With the massive power difference between user and provider, and the placid acceptance so far of people who have had accounts, including very successful accounts stolen, it seems unlikely that the case will be tested. However I think it would be good to see it tested in court, in front of jury who are all users of social media, who are made to fully understand the value of their input into platforms, the way it can be easily stolen, and the way that social media corporations, not only benefit from the information they scrape, but also from the marketing and promotion value that users do for that platform. The timing and size of the platforms that are now abusing their users is very telling, these are companies that are assessing their reach as maxed out, that the margins of gaining new users or losing users hardly matters compared to the margins of exploiting those users.

              The business argument is given about pressure on advertisers from users, that's very dubious, though advertisers tend to have kneejerk sensitivity, those numbers can be easily measured and they can be given hard business data to calm their nerves, more telling advertising is carefully demographically targeted (that's the whole point of the endless data mining allegedly...) So advertising is unlikely to be targeted where it isn't wanted by virtue of expected demographics for each channel being pretty well known. This would mean that advertisers in effect don't want to sell product to white men, for example, to the extent that they want to take steps to avoid doing so. The argument is getting ludicrous, and business data has been pretty advanced in these things for a long time. IMHO the only explanation that makes sense, is the infiltration of these businesses by political ideologues getting jobs through affirmative action, then using those jobs to influence the platform's policy. A combination of internal and external political pressure. That is attempting to do the opposite of the market pressure from the users. The algorithms are optimised to max out on market pressure, ergo they have a tendency to rapidly place users into echo chambers, because they so rapidly type users from their selections and the profiles of people they follow. One has to hope that the big platforms belief that they know the user better than the users know themselves is false, and users will desert platforms in large numbers as content they want is denied to them (I'd imagine though large platforms aren't worried about that, edgy political content is still way behind fluffy cats and Tommy slips up on a pile of vomit images) or that significant users actually start taking platforms to court for compensation of the value of their work, both value to their own earnings and the value of the work they have invested in promoting the platform.

              Right wing capitalist democracy minded content providers should basically stop weakly accepting crappy flawed ownership arguments and meekly getting booted off from their earned income and capital investments and start acting like frigging capitalists.

              Yes, you are right. That is why I was bringing up the other service models, "Editorial Content" and "Publisher", in addition to being a straight up "Public Carrier"-- who is only responsible for transmitting conversations from point A to point B. Once you start *STORING* the information, and especially once you start permitting that stored information to be SEEN and PERUSED, you go from being a CARRIER to *at least* being a Publisher. If you *TOUCH* that content, apart from responding to complaints about illegal content, *YOU* become *RESPONSIBLE* for that content-- and also you fall over into the category of an "EDITOR". Editors are the *MOST* responsible for the content presented / disseminated. Publishers are the second most, and Carriers are the least responsible for the content-- provided they don't fuck with it. Facebook, YouTube, et al **CANNOT** stand in open court and make any rational claim that they haven't fucked with their content. Thus any hope they have of SKIRTING THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THAT CONTENT hinges *entirely* on how well they can argue before the court that they either ARE or SHOULD BE considered a "Public Carrier". Although, (and this is the move *I* would make if I were Facebook or YouTube), they *COULD* argue (and I think competently) that they are the vanguard of a *NEW* model that hasn't been seen before-- but that said, I think the court would ultimately have to consider their positioning, service to the public, benefit to the public, and the *ACTUAL MANNER* in which people use the service and the expectations of freedom / free expression-- in making their decision. So even if Facebook / Youtube made the argument that they should be "something new"-- they might not get it-- or even if they do-- it might not be as liberating as they could hope for. The precedents are all there. It would (will?) be an extremely interesting battle should it ever come to fruition. It is definitely one that I would enjoy a ringside seat for along with a big tub of buttered popcorn!


              Another interesting point to make here is the recognition of the VAST power differential between the typical huge corporation (such as Facebook, YouTube or Google) versus the typical consumer. The Canadian Supreme Court just made a ruling not too long ago that declared that the power differential was so great as to effectively render the idea that a "contract at will" is being made between the corporation and the end consumer is in effect, laughable. And has gone on to declare such blanket contracts all but null and void-- not quite, but severely limiting their application and "teeth".

              Here is a better description of it. But while it is relatively narrowly applied in this instance, you can see that (a) it is already in the relevant arena for online issues / contracts, and (b) has lots of room for expanded scope to further protect the consumer.

              Douez v. Facebook, Inc.: Supreme Court of Canada decision creates new uncertainty about enforceability of forum selection clauses in consumer contracts
              http://www.canadianclassactionsmonit...mer-contracts/
              FEMINISM is a HATE GROUP - Feminists are HATEFUL PEOPLE
              It's time to call it out for what it is.



              The World of Men - Men's Rights / MGTOW / Sites of Interest to Men

              http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showt...nterest-to-Men

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Iggy View Post
                all but purged... using the 'Brave' browser as we speak... DuckDuckGo search tool... Vid.me video platform...
                thanks for that dunno how I missed Brave Browser.
                stunning work that integrates a bunch of addons that I use in Mozilla.
                ...and fast!!

                could handle script blocking better and allow selective script enables but meh, All Off is good enough.

                first search popped up a "google wants your location" ... yeah right Zuck, I suppose you wanna know why I think wrong too?

                and Googles is Duck Duck Gone
                "Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one" - Charles Mackay

                And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee. - Donne

                "What we are seeing in this headless misandry is a grand display of the Tyranny of the Underdog: 'I am a wretchedly longstanding victim; therefore I own no burden of adult accountability, nor need to honor any restraint against my words and actions. In fact, all efforts to restrain me are only further proof of my oppressed condition.'
                "It is the most perfect trump-card against accountable living ever devised." - Gladden Schrock

                "What remains for most men in modern life is a world of expectation without reward, burden without honor and service without self" - Paul Elam

                Comment


                • #9
                  Every time I see a New Hampshire license plate, I admire its slogan.

                  Stay single and prosper!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by MatrixTransform View Post
                    thanks for that dunno how I missed Brave Browser.
                    stunning work that integrates a bunch of addons that I use in Mozilla.
                    ...and fast!!

                    could handle script blocking better and allow selective script enables but meh, All Off is good enough.

                    first search popped up a "google wants your location" ... yeah right Zuck, I suppose you wanna know why I think wrong too?

                    and Googles is Duck Duck Gone

                    The problem with all of these "privacy" browsers and various protections is that they don't really work. There is a built in flaw in the system-- a hole really-- that they don't cover-- because they *CAN'T* cover which absolutely, completely and near-totally renders what they aim to do for you thoroughly useless....

                    Most people, at least in the US, and jacked into the Net via their phone or cable provider. Which means that there is a *discrete* (single) wire or fiber line going from their equipment to your equipment. And you can bet your bippy that wire or fiber line has an ID number that the provider bloody well knows about. So the instant your traffic comes sneaking out of the gate-- they tag it with THEIR OWN ID number and pass it along to wherever it was you're going. So the upshot is that the people on the OTHER end, *DO* have a token they can use to track you DESPITE just about any or all "scrubbing" actions you might take to the contrary. So whomever it is might not have your name (or they might if you sign in with it) but they don't really need it for what they want to do with your information anyway. And if they do need it, your telephone or cable company will be HAPPY to give it to them for a small fee... that last bit of info that connects YOUR NAME with THEIR tracking ID number.

                    Now there are a couple of things that actually work-- or rather, *CAN* work. There are ways they can be sabotaged too. One is to use a VPN (encrypted) connection from your own location, through your provider, to some third-party endpoint whom you assume / believe / trust / hope is not assigning any super-cookies when they leave the VPN tunnel. That has the disadvantage though of adding hops and latency to all of your traffic which traverses that route. Another problem for many people is that either their providers or the laws in their countries don't allow them to use VPN tunnels or "anonymizers" which are essentially the same thing except with perhaps less encryption as their function is simply to obscure your traffic and not particularly to make it impenetrable.

                    Another thing that *CAN* work is to use some alternate provider that you assume / believe / trust / hope is not assigning super-cookies to your traffic, such as a very small local or regional provider who is not affiliated with a larger provider and some institutional integrity (good luck finding THAT these days...) It is still technically possible for super-cookies to be added by the *next* provider (eg., who *they* hand the traffic off to) but it is nowhere near as personally identifiable or relevant as it would only give the third party a statistical understanding of whatever it is you (all) are doing (collectively) as a locality or region, though they might be able to collect IP addresses and perform mode detailed analysis, who has the time, energy or inclination for that when it's easier to simply get the super-cookies instead. Maybe the NSA might...? (Shrug)

                    But that's about the extent of what you can *REALLY* do to cover your tracks, be private, or be anonymous on the Internet. All the "incognito" settings do in your browser is agree not to LOCALLY accept, store, or disclose "cookies" (tracking information) to a remote party. They have absolutely NO CONTROL WHATSOEVER in the ability of your PROVIDER to add them for you-- without your knowledge, consent or control.
                    FEMINISM is a HATE GROUP - Feminists are HATEFUL PEOPLE
                    It's time to call it out for what it is.



                    The World of Men - Men's Rights / MGTOW / Sites of Interest to Men

                    http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showt...nterest-to-Men

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Well I never served... In my country of origin it was mandatory that all boys go to the army after high school. I just look for loophole after loophole till I figure a way out... So I manage to avoid it.

                      I don't know what I would have done in your position... hard to say... I am not the kind of people that would have made it in the army neither...

                      The whole concept sounds strange to me, they take your freedom and give you a gun, they must have know you really well... at the end it worked out just the way they wanted.

                      I also have travel a lot... but in my case I am more like a donkey looking for the greener grass... mostly...

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Points taken. All probably true.

                        my reasoning isnt about hiding my identity because the truth is that if you could be truly anonymous, then well, you prolly would be allowed to even use the net.

                        Nah, Im all about interrupting the cash-flow for Googles and any other leech in-between.

                        I dont want tailored ads that privilege the highest ad revenue for Gulag....when a supplier is like 4000km away. FFS

                        When I visit a news site I dont even want to see the ads in the side bars. ever.

                        I dont want their nasty little scripts running that refer you around a dozen different servers.

                        Dont like the cookies that enable them to bullshit about hotel availability ...OMG only one room left (yeah right, fuck off)

                        Besides, I want ruin the metrics the Financialisation Wizards use to broker with that create extra cost for everybody while they skim.

                        I want to be absolutely useless to them

                        I am not their cash-crop

                        They want something from me, be it demographic data or pointed sales ...they can find another way.

                        Fuck em
                        "Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one" - Charles Mackay

                        And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee. - Donne

                        "What we are seeing in this headless misandry is a grand display of the Tyranny of the Underdog: 'I am a wretchedly longstanding victim; therefore I own no burden of adult accountability, nor need to honor any restraint against my words and actions. In fact, all efforts to restrain me are only further proof of my oppressed condition.'
                        "It is the most perfect trump-card against accountable living ever devised." - Gladden Schrock

                        "What remains for most men in modern life is a world of expectation without reward, burden without honor and service without self" - Paul Elam

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by mr_e View Post
                          Great post, really good.

                          One issue which is raised but not really addressed-- certainly not in legal terms or legal precedent other than going back to traditional property rights and such, which may or may not apply in the digital world, or in certain circumstances, depending upon how services are advertised and what the understanding is when people sign up.... And that is where does the idea of "Public" start and stop. In the old world, it was pretty easy to point to and delineate "Public Spaces". Over here, over there, the public square, the public building-- whatever it is, it starts over here, continues to over there, and everything inside the box is "Public".

                          Nowadays, we have shifted our mode of operation and much of our social paradigm to the "online space". The Internet, collectively, is largely considered "Public", and yet it is comprised individually of lots of little locally-owned segments. (In fact, as a topic for a separate discussion, this is really one of the chief issues surrounding the notion of "Net Neutrality") And certainly when you put up your own little web page, and maybe a discussion forum (such as the one you're reading now), it is typically owned or controlled by an individual or small entity, and used to interact with a small group of people and perhaps moderated in some tightly controlled way. The range of "freedom" is typically discussed on the way in the door, and users are generally told what the scope of their conversational freedom can be, is.

                          But here's the thing. There are number of companies such as Facebook, YouTube, MySpace, Twitter (to some lesser degree), even Google, among others who have positioned themselves as "forums for all" with a generally (supposedly) liberal policy for topics as long as they aren't actually illegal-- as is *legally* defined somewhere. So when they get millions and millions of people signing up for them and using them every day in their everyday conversations and social activities-- Facebook is transitioning / transcending the model of the "small privately owned web forum" and really positioning themselves as the new age (digital age) "Public Street". In which case a whole new layer of concern and tolerance for various types of communication is required-- and legally imposed and guaranteed by the United States Constitution (for US users, and likely similar arrangements for users in other areas with laws that govern such things).

                          The fact is that this concept hasn't really been tested much in the digital age, though it certainly has in the "telecommunications age". That is exactly what happened to the telephone companies-- they went from being small, privately-owned entities that had a great deal of control over what and how their users were able to interact with the system, to "Public Carriers" with specific officially-mandated requirements of what they could and could not do to facilitate and interfere with "Public" Communication. And this has been written into law for quite a few decades now-- I'm guess probably at least 40-50 years or more. So there is a lot of already established legal precedent covering the ins and outs of all that-- combined with the publishing and magazine industries which have similar issues when dealing with the editing (editorializing) and publication of their various products. All of this isn't just idle talk, it's actual legally established precedent and various legally proscribed service models that these companies *MUST* follow in order to stay in compliance with the law. And again, presumably other countries have similar rules that must be adhered to when operating there.

                          So companies like Facebook started out and grew rapidly with the "small privately-owned forum / content" concept. Which is a perfectly acceptable model-- legally they were probably in the "Publisher" mode since they don't produce content of their own-- if they do, then they would straddle the "Editor" / "Publisher" models and would have appropriate delineations in their company structure to accommodate the requirements of the various models.

                          But now, due to their overwhelming popularity and the sheer number of people that access the site and do so with the expectation that they are free to say whatever they want to say as long as it falls within the legal restrictions of their respective countries, one can make the legal challenge that Facebook, like the telephone companies before it, has transcended its original mode and model and is now operating as a de-facto Public Carrier. And if you can get the government to declare them as one-- they *IMMEDIATELY* must follow a whole new standard of *MUCH STRICTER* guidelines and rules governing what they can censor / delete / remove / alter / etc. and what they cannot.

                          The more companies like Facebook fuck with the various groups-- particularly the marginalized groups, or groups that are not in favor with the public-- the easier it will be for one of these marginalized groups to take them to court-- and very rapidly ascend to the Supreme Court level and have this issue decided once and for all. And once the precedent is set for one, it will immediately be set for all of them. Lawsuits will quickly follow back and forth of course to hammer out the details and extents of the various rulings. But I personally do not think that Facebook is in a very good position here to argue that it has been a good steward of the public trust and is operating "fairly" to the benefit of all parties involved. But rather, an *EXCEPTIONALLY EASY* case can be made that they are NOT.

                          They of course will bring legions of lawyers to bear to argue their case-- but the case that they have transcended their initial operating modes and have reached the point of being "Public Carriers" is, at this point, pretty easy to make. By practically anybody. My dog could do it-- if I had a dog...

                          It goes without saying that such a decision would be an *ENORMOUS* victory to both the various marginalized groups (such as the MHRM) and others, as well as a huge validation of the concept of Free Speech, Free Association, and all of the principles of liberty that this country has been founded upon.
                          I don't agree...

                          The owner of the website is the owner of the website... The fact that a website becomes successful does not means that the government can now seize it.

                          You really want to create a public online space?

                          Create a non for profit, to pay the bills, then code the software and release it as open source code...

                          That is what Wikipedia, and wordpress have done.

                          There is always this debate about google and facebook... I have not seeing mentions of wikipedia and wordpress... I guess because there is no problems with the freedom of speech in those websites?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by simpleman View Post
                            I don't agree...

                            The owner of the website is the owner of the website...
                            What happened to the anarchy?

                            Fuck, mate you are seriously deficient in the reasoning department!
                            "Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one" - Charles Mackay

                            And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee. - Donne

                            "What we are seeing in this headless misandry is a grand display of the Tyranny of the Underdog: 'I am a wretchedly longstanding victim; therefore I own no burden of adult accountability, nor need to honor any restraint against my words and actions. In fact, all efforts to restrain me are only further proof of my oppressed condition.'
                            "It is the most perfect trump-card against accountable living ever devised." - Gladden Schrock

                            "What remains for most men in modern life is a world of expectation without reward, burden without honor and service without self" - Paul Elam

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by mr_e View Post
                              Another thing that *CAN* work is to use some alternate provider that you assume / believe / trust / hope is not assigning super-cookies to your traffic, such as a very small local or regional provider who is not affiliated with a larger provider and some institutional integrity...
                              You will no find this.

                              First of all the equipment that does the networking at that scale, for instance CISCO routers, do the marking and save it inside their listings... so in reality this small local servers providers will have the options to get the equipment they need to run their service, and build the listings... or run their service on Linksys, LOL.

                              Then it comes the legal problem... if the police tracks down an user, they can legally charge the last person they find in the chain... So for instance someone download illegal material, the police will track it to this theoretical alternative provider, then the provider will say they don't have any info to help them out, then the police can charge the owner of the last IP, that is the provider, with downloading the illegal material.

                              This law was made exactly to prevent the scenario you describe. But they, of course, now sue it to harass people around... because some people leave wi-fi open... so they are also open to face the legal consequences of what his users do... a simple GOOGLE search give me this few results:

                              http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christ..._b_599945.html
                              A German court recently fined an owner of a wireless router for not appropriately securing a device and thus allowing the device to be used by a third party to connect to the internet via the router and engage in illegal download activity. The court in Karlsruhe, Germany noted “Private users are obligated to check whether their wireless connection is adequately secured to the danger of unauthorized third parties abusing it to commit copyright violation.” The court noted that owner could be fined up to 100 Euros. Regardless of the laws in your area, legal problems are only one of many reasons to ensure your router is secure.
                              https://hubpages.com/technology/6-Re...-Wi-Fi-Network
                              Imagine this... Cops busting in with submachine guns, shove them in your face, tackle you to the floor, wrench your arms behind your back, and handcuff you, for something your neighbor did... "Oops! Wrong house!" The SWAT team was looking for your neighbor, who actually was downloading something VERY VERY illegal... over YOUR network.

                              Don't think it can happen to you? it happened to Ted Davis of Alva, Florida on 07-OCT-2010. WINK news of Florida reports:

                              Deputies arrested Candice Miller only after they raided the wrong house. Investigators busted into the neighbors' house suspecting they were sending child porn. Turns out Miller's neighbors didn't secure their wireless Internet connection. Ted Davis says he was thrown to the ground and had his home searched by deputies Tuesday morning. They were looking for his neighbor - Candice Miller.
                              http://o.seattletimes.nwsource.com/h...87_wifi25.html
                              Lying on his family-room floor with assault weapons trained on him, shouts of "pedophile!" and "pornographer!" stinging like his fresh cuts and bruises, the Buffalo homeowner didn't need long to figure out the reason for the early-morning wake-up call from a swarm of federal agents...

                              Law-enforcement officials say the case is a cautionary tale. Their advice: Password-protect your wireless router. Plenty of others would agree.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X