6 ms·

The internet was always the best tool for us to finally be on equal grounds with our overlords. - When religion overpowered us, we were helpless and had to obe

The internet was always the best tool for us to finally be on equal grounds with our overlords. - When religion overpowered us, we were helpless and had to obey. - When guns came into play, we were helpless and had to obey. - When TV and Radio began, the narrative was controlled and we were brainwashed to obey. The Internet is like the power of TV and radio in the hands of the people, and the power of the people is beyond guns and religion. This is too much for those who wish to stifle the power of the people. So they have been passing small laws left and right leading to a slippery slope of laws removing our rights and freedoms (and essentially the power of the people). Now that we have become desensitized (they proved it with the “internet world control” move known as GDPR that proved they control the internet) they wish to make the final controversial blow. Make no mistake, this has always been a fight for control of our freedom. The internet and decentralized technologies like it as well as the many built on top of it are the only chance we have to maintain freedom as people and society. Censorship has always been about maintaining their narrative. Luckily we no longer have to sit back and get whipped anymore. Now we have tools like cryptography that can allow us to create systems that cannot be controlled by a single person. That said, even with the tools, if we don’t use them, then we are “tools.”

coldtea 8y ago
>The Internet is like the power of TV and radio in the hands of the people, and the power of the people is beyond guns and religion. What makes people powerful is coordination. The public space for conversation on the web are a handful of platforms - and those can easily be controlled. The rest can still exist (personal webpages and so on), but they will remain fringe. >Censorship has always been about maintaining their narrative. Well, first they came for Alex Jones, but I didn't do anything, I wasn't a conspiracy nut...
- rasengan 8y ago
  It’s funny how hard they went on Alex Jones as that can pretty much summarize to us all whether they were afraid of his rhetoric or not. They were very afraid.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    People who casually read conspiracy and alternative news (e.g. not hardcore conspiracy theorists who read David Icke), might believe some crazy crap (that doesn't hurt anyone, just discredits themselves), but they are also more prone to questioning the mainstream narratives (and that is very much feared). Not to mention that a lot of very true shit going on is indeed conspiracies -- it just doesn't involve aliens and illuminati, but established powers (e.g. the white establishment having FBI follow and discredit MLK and other civil rights activists), state agencies, rich private interests buying politicians and forming cartels, powerful elites pushing their agendas, big industries promoting their crap (e.g. big food and big tobacco buying their own "scientific research" and then promoting it in through the magazines they advertise in) and so on...
    - nl 8y ago
      People who casually read conspiracy and alternative news (e.g. not hardcore conspiracy theorists who read David Icke), might believe some crazy crap (that doesn't hurt anyone, just discredits themselves) Well that is simply not true. For example, the Sandy Hook harassment brigade caused real harm, eg: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-florida-crime-sandyhook-idUSKBN18Y2BY https://www.reuters.com/article/us-florida-crime-sandyhook-i...
      - coldtea 8y ago
        Yeah, a false story can cause such harassment, but that's not unique it conspiracy stories. An actual true fact could cause harassment as well (e.g. people attacking muslims after 9/11, because the perpetrators where muslims, and so on). I'd say the problem lies more with people that find it acceptable to harass others, whether their actions are based on a true story or a hoax.
        CJefferson 8y ago
        I feel you are stretching here. It seems everyone who ends up involved in a major internet conspiracy gets serious harassment. You can't disconnect conspiracies from the harassment they cause.
- prolikewh0a 8y ago
  First they came for Alex Jones and I applauded because he was a jerk, then they came for me.
- wnevets 8y ago
  Which government came for alex jones exactly?
  - craftyguy 8y ago
    None. GP is conflating US companies with the government.
    - coldtea 8y ago
      There's not much difference in a corporatist state, where a heck of a lot of the wealth is concentrated in a few private corporations and interests... That's the same whether it's the USA or some Latin American country with 5 wealthy families enjoying politicians in their pockets. "What's good for the country is good for General Motors"-style...
    - apostacy 8y ago
      It could be argued that private companies censoring you violates your first amendment rights. And it probably will be decided by the supreme court in the next few years. Free speech is a concept, not just the bare letter of the text of the bill of rights. [1] And there are examples of private companies being forbidden from censoring or removing people. For example, the courts ruled that a private airport was forbidden from kicking out people who were there to hand out flyers. [2] And, do you seriously think it is ok for the private electricity company or the postal service to deny access to their network because they disagree with your politics? Is it really ok, just because "property rights"? The first telegram network was a total monopoly, and was used as a tool by the wealthy to manipulate elections and tamper with commodities prices. It was because of this that we got common carriage laws. Back then, would you have defended the telegraph company banning journalists who criticized labor practices in coal mines? Why not? It's their private property after all. Those labor organizers and human rights activists should have thought about the consequences of their actions before attempting to expose child labor. [1]: http://magaimg.net/img/5yri.png http://magaimg.net/img/5yri.png [2]: https://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/12/26/ca-supremes-give-free-speech-rights-on-private-property/ https://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/12/26/ca-supremes-give-free-s...
- mc32 8y ago
  Speaking of bans, can private companies censor government communications, from a legal PoV? Say company “X” runs a comms medium, and either an official office channel or an official with a private channel is contrary to the views of that entity, can that private entity legally censor government communication?
Soinou 8y ago
> (they proved it with the “internet world control” move known as GDPR that proved they control the internet) GDPR is not about controlling the internet but allowing users of the internet to control their privacy even against big companies.
- rasengan 8y ago
  Exactly, but it was an exercise to assert control over, also, companies and people outside of the EU jurisdiction. GDPR is an internet law - even if it’s legally only supposed to apply to the EU.
- kodablah 8y ago
  I'm a broken record on this point these days, but what the law is about matters less than what it does and the precedent of heavy-handed internet governance it sets.
nullifidian 8y ago
>- When guns came into play, we were helpless and had to obey. As if before guns opposing trained swordsmen was an easy task.
- towelr34dy 8y ago
  Actually, IIRC from my history classes, guns were called the 'great equalizer' because all of a sudden a child could kill a full grown swordsmen with the same easy as a highly trained warrior.
swingline-747 8y ago
True. Nice parallels to Martin Niemöller's famous quote.
lumberjack 8y ago
The hard task is not to evade censorship. That is easy. That was always easy. You could always invent some creative method to pass information along. The hard part is to mass disseminate your information. The internet was promising in this regard but as coldtea points out, we ended up with a couple of platforms who control the whole narrative. That is to say, we have achieved decentralised internet so to speak, and we have the web which is a means to broadcast information, but we do not yet have the decentralised web.

coldtea 8y ago

>The Internet is like the power of TV and radio in the hands of the people, and the power of the people is beyond guns and religion. What makes people powerful is coordination. The public space for conversation on the web are a handful of platforms - and those can easily be controlled. The rest can still exist (personal webpages and so on), but they will remain fringe. >Censorship has always been about maintaining their narrative. Well, first they came for Alex Jones, but I didn't do anything, I wasn't a conspiracy nut...

rasengan 8y ago
It’s funny how hard they went on Alex Jones as that can pretty much summarize to us all whether they were afraid of his rhetoric or not. They were very afraid.
- coldtea 8y ago
  People who casually read conspiracy and alternative news (e.g. not hardcore conspiracy theorists who read David Icke), might believe some crazy crap (that doesn't hurt anyone, just discredits themselves), but they are also more prone to questioning the mainstream narratives (and that is very much feared). Not to mention that a lot of very true shit going on is indeed conspiracies -- it just doesn't involve aliens and illuminati, but established powers (e.g. the white establishment having FBI follow and discredit MLK and other civil rights activists), state agencies, rich private interests buying politicians and forming cartels, powerful elites pushing their agendas, big industries promoting their crap (e.g. big food and big tobacco buying their own "scientific research" and then promoting it in through the magazines they advertise in) and so on...
  - nl 8y ago
    People who casually read conspiracy and alternative news (e.g. not hardcore conspiracy theorists who read David Icke), might believe some crazy crap (that doesn't hurt anyone, just discredits themselves) Well that is simply not true. For example, the Sandy Hook harassment brigade caused real harm, eg: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-florida-crime-sandyhook-idUSKBN18Y2BY https://www.reuters.com/article/us-florida-crime-sandyhook-i...
    - coldtea 8y ago
      Yeah, a false story can cause such harassment, but that's not unique it conspiracy stories. An actual true fact could cause harassment as well (e.g. people attacking muslims after 9/11, because the perpetrators where muslims, and so on). I'd say the problem lies more with people that find it acceptable to harass others, whether their actions are based on a true story or a hoax.
      - CJefferson 8y ago
        I feel you are stretching here. It seems everyone who ends up involved in a major internet conspiracy gets serious harassment. You can't disconnect conspiracies from the harassment they cause.
prolikewh0a 8y ago
First they came for Alex Jones and I applauded because he was a jerk, then they came for me.
wnevets 8y ago
Which government came for alex jones exactly?
- craftyguy 8y ago
  None. GP is conflating US companies with the government.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    There's not much difference in a corporatist state, where a heck of a lot of the wealth is concentrated in a few private corporations and interests... That's the same whether it's the USA or some Latin American country with 5 wealthy families enjoying politicians in their pockets. "What's good for the country is good for General Motors"-style...
  - apostacy 8y ago
    It could be argued that private companies censoring you violates your first amendment rights. And it probably will be decided by the supreme court in the next few years. Free speech is a concept, not just the bare letter of the text of the bill of rights. [1] And there are examples of private companies being forbidden from censoring or removing people. For example, the courts ruled that a private airport was forbidden from kicking out people who were there to hand out flyers. [2] And, do you seriously think it is ok for the private electricity company or the postal service to deny access to their network because they disagree with your politics? Is it really ok, just because "property rights"? The first telegram network was a total monopoly, and was used as a tool by the wealthy to manipulate elections and tamper with commodities prices. It was because of this that we got common carriage laws. Back then, would you have defended the telegraph company banning journalists who criticized labor practices in coal mines? Why not? It's their private property after all. Those labor organizers and human rights activists should have thought about the consequences of their actions before attempting to expose child labor. [1]: http://magaimg.net/img/5yri.png http://magaimg.net/img/5yri.png [2]: https://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/12/26/ca-supremes-give-free-speech-rights-on-private-property/ https://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/12/26/ca-supremes-give-free-s...
mc32 8y ago
Speaking of bans, can private companies censor government communications, from a legal PoV? Say company “X” runs a comms medium, and either an official office channel or an official with a private channel is contrary to the views of that entity, can that private entity legally censor government communication?

Soinou 8y ago

> (they proved it with the “internet world control” move known as GDPR that proved they control the internet) GDPR is not about controlling the internet but allowing users of the internet to control their privacy even against big companies.

rasengan 8y ago
Exactly, but it was an exercise to assert control over, also, companies and people outside of the EU jurisdiction. GDPR is an internet law - even if it’s legally only supposed to apply to the EU.
kodablah 8y ago
I'm a broken record on this point these days, but what the law is about matters less than what it does and the precedent of heavy-handed internet governance it sets.

nullifidian 8y ago

>- When guns came into play, we were helpless and had to obey. As if before guns opposing trained swordsmen was an easy task.

towelr34dy 8y ago
Actually, IIRC from my history classes, guns were called the 'great equalizer' because all of a sudden a child could kill a full grown swordsmen with the same easy as a highly trained warrior.

swingline-747 8y ago

True. Nice parallels to Martin Niemöller's famous quote.

lumberjack 8y ago

The hard task is not to evade censorship. That is easy. That was always easy. You could always invent some creative method to pass information along. The hard part is to mass disseminate your information. The internet was promising in this regard but as coldtea points out, we ended up with a couple of platforms who control the whole narrative. That is to say, we have achieved decentralised internet so to speak, and we have the web which is a means to broadcast information, but we do not yet have the decentralised web.