3 ms·

> The 'good' they're attempting to do is preventing terrorism by sifting through the sea of available information on social media. No it isn't. That's the dist

> The 'good' they're attempting to do is preventing terrorism by sifting through the sea of available information on social media. No it isn't. That's the distraction. Their purpose is the sift through all available information to stifle dissent, spread misinformation, sow discord and divisiveness among the people, destroy unions and maintaining the status quo in the interests of the elite, the wealthy and the landed that have captured supposedly democratic governments throughout the world. We know they poison online discussion forums (not just terrorism-related ones) and have armies of paid pro-government and pro-surveillance shills much like China abnd Russia that deflect and obfuscate discussion in order to direct it in their own interests. We know they target charities and civil rights groups like Oxfam, Amnesty, the Red Cross and Open Rights Group and label them domestic extremists' simply for wanting to help and offer people representation and due process. Apparently these things are 'extremism' now. We know they have knowingly and intentionally targeted innocent people and compromised their personal devices and surveilled them through their webcams and microphones and location services. We know they have targeted companies both foreign and domestic not for national security, but for economic espionage. We know that total shit-heels that work for these organisations have used their access to target and manipulate love interests, politicians and rivals. Those who speak up will be discovered to be all manner of criminals, or will find themselves victims of a car bomb, or a mysterious illness or timely suicide. They do this because of the brewing shitstorm, born of a century or more of regulatory capture, widening inequality and transfer and consolidation of wealth from the many to the few. Intelligence agencies are not your friend. They are a private army. Just look at the City of London Police. They may as well be the copyright industry's hired goons. The next stage in this will be the increase in the use of private military contractors globally, not just by governments by by private entities. Mass surveillance has ALWAYS been a to control populations, without exception.

anigbrowl 9y ago
I thought it was clear that I was referring to their nominal mission as an intelligence organization, rather than the political ends to which they are put. I'm not suggesting they're my friends or that they are desirable, and my repeated reminders that I don't endorse this should have made that clear. Without going into details, I have first hand experience of being on the wrong end of state scrutiny, I hope more than you ever will. I'm trying to analyse this problem by looking at it in purely rationalist terms and assuming that people I disagree with are going to pursue their collective interest whether or not I approve. I rely heavily on the selectorate theory model outlined in The Dictator's Handbook and in more depth in The Logic of Political Survival. I try to discuss this in analytical rather than agitating language on HN because the mods complain when I get too political. I hope that makes my commentary easier to understand. Please stop trying to tell me about stuff I already know and tell me how you would work on the problem of the general public easily being stampeded into backing repressive policies. That's what I need actual help with, and I need something a lot more actionable than 'let's educate everyone and teach them to think critically' because that's a generational problem and one that is not going to just work automatically. You can contact me via gmail if you'd prefer, or other channels including personally.

anigbrowl 9y ago

I thought it was clear that I was referring to their nominal mission as an intelligence organization, rather than the political ends to which they are put. I'm not suggesting they're my friends or that they are desirable, and my repeated reminders that I don't endorse this should have made that clear. Without going into details, I have first hand experience of being on the wrong end of state scrutiny, I hope more than you ever will. I'm trying to analyse this problem by looking at it in purely rationalist terms and assuming that people I disagree with are going to pursue their collective interest whether or not I approve. I rely heavily on the selectorate theory model outlined in The Dictator's Handbook and in more depth in The Logic of Political Survival. I try to discuss this in analytical rather than agitating language on HN because the mods complain when I get too political. I hope that makes my commentary easier to understand. Please stop trying to tell me about stuff I already know and tell me how you would work on the problem of the general public easily being stampeded into backing repressive policies. That's what I need actual help with, and I need something a lot more actionable than 'let's educate everyone and teach them to think critically' because that's a generational problem and one that is not going to just work automatically. You can contact me via gmail if you'd prefer, or other channels including personally.