J.L.W Posted August 16, 2018 Posted August 16, 2018 Looks like the s-it has hit the fan then! This came up while I was on twitter a few minutes ago. I am getting these sorts of things come up regularly and I haven't caught them but individual right wing groups etc. This is youtube, facebook, twitter etc. Here is a Breitbart article that has some relevance: Breitbart London: Bokhari: Why Tech Giants Aren’t the Same as Christian Bakeries https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/08/14/bokhari-why-tech-giants-arent-like-christian-bakeries/ Quote Social media companies (and online payment processors) have grown to a similar level of influence. When Facebook tweaked its algorithm — largely without warning — in January, it cut traffic to the non-political viral website LittleThings by 75 percent. The website had to shut down, laying off its 100-strong workforce. The same happened to Rare.us, a conservative-oriented site producing viral content. According to a report by Digiday, entire business models built around the distribution of viral content on Facebook were rendered unviable by the platform’s rapid shift. ... Establishment parties will be severely hampered by social media bias, but they can always fall back on broadcast media and their nationwide network of activists to get their message out. Grassroots movements have no such luxury. Success on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and even Reddit and 4chan mean life or death for a modern grassroots movement. Some, like GamerGate (perhaps the most lied-about movement against progressive media elites in recent memory) exist almost entirely on social media. Unfortunately, it’s also much easier for a platform to ban, suspend, or suppress content from rank-and-file members of grassroots movements without anyone ever hearing about it. Unlike Rep. Matt Gaetz or RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel, a grassroots activist is unlikely to have the kind of media connections and political clout to fight back Beyond social media, grassroots conservatives rely on online services for fundraising. There, the problem of bias is even worse than it is on social media. Right-wing commentators have been routinely kicked off fundraising platforms on bogus charges. Coincidentally, one of the banned campaigns was trying to raise money for those controversial Christian bakers! What’s more, the creation of alternative fundraising platforms has been rendered impossible by the unwillingness of PayPal and Stripe to process payments for pro-free speech alternatives like MakerSupport and FreeStartr. Stefan escaped a youtube banning by the skin of his teeth but this problem still persists. What do we think shouild be done? Free Market the situation? Gov Intervention?
barn Posted August 16, 2018 Posted August 16, 2018 "The future belongs to those that will it the strongest" (in the present). Will the government put more restrictions on freedoms, increasing the monopoly of Frisco based companies? I think so. But I also think that alternative channels just got a few billions of dollars worth of free advertising... hopefully they have projects to spend it on in the pipeline. Yes, the true colours of the gatekeepers is beginning to show ever more vividly. There will be casualties and in fact as Mike Cernovich has put it, it's also going to be happening on sides not yet affected as much. Logically. 1
shirgall Posted August 16, 2018 Posted August 16, 2018 The Internet interprets censorship as packet loss and routes around it. Sometimes it costs a lot to build multiple routes, but that's how you make yourself resilient: creating choices.
ofd Posted August 16, 2018 Posted August 16, 2018 Quote Free Market the situation? The current situation developed within a free market. Quote Gov Intervention? Declare natural monopolies public utilities and treat them the same way as phone companies or electricity providers.
J.L.W Posted August 16, 2018 Author Posted August 16, 2018 50 minutes ago, ofd said: The current situation developed within a free market. I don't know... Does a monopoly form within a free market? There has been a lot of establishment policies to stop small companies. I don't know about the situation in America, but in the EU there are loads of 'EU Compliance laws' etc. Banks have been caught deliberately bankrupting small companies. Google has links to the CIA I think.
RichardY Posted August 16, 2018 Posted August 16, 2018 Something like Steam would be cool, pay 5p - 10p a video, add up pretty fast. Or a Doomsday Machine. Strangelove : Mr. President, the technology required is easily within the means of even the smallest nuclear power. It requires only the will to do so. Muffley: But, how is it possible for this thing to be triggered automatically, and at the same time impossible to untrigger? Strangelove: Mr. President, it is not only possible, it is essential. That is the whole idea of this machine, you know. Deterrence is the art of producing in the mind of the enemy… the fear to attack. And so, because of the automated and irrevocable decision making process which rules out human meddling, the doomsday machine is terrifying. It’s simple to understand. And completely credible, and convincing. … Muffley: But this is fantastic, Strangelove. How can it be triggered automatically? Strangelove: Well, it’s remarkably simple to do that. When you merely wish to bury bombs, there is no limit to the size. After that they are connected to a gigantic complex of computers. Now then, a specific and clearly defined set of circumstances, under which the bombs are to be exploded, is programmed into a tape memory bank.
shirgall Posted August 17, 2018 Posted August 17, 2018 10 hours ago, ofd said: The current situation developed within a free market. The current situation was created with massive funding to create a resilient communications network in case of nuclear war. Before Al Gore took the initiative in funding one of the generations of the Internet, that's what we were doing with ARPANet in the 80s, and that's why there was a single namespace for domain naming and a central authority for doling out Internet addresses. But what was funny was that there were many email systems gatewayed together and the need to create blacklists against certain hosts and routes we found to be abusive of the scarce resource of bandwidth. It was always an evolving situation where those with resources to invest primarily being government institutions that needed to share a lot of data or get access to remote computing resources, educational institutions, large commercial business interests, and enthusiasts. Even so, most of the time where bandwidth was plentiful we all implicitly agreed to be gracious in what we accepted and economic in what we sent. That allows us all to make pretty robust systems that gave us what we wanted far more often than giving us exposure to abuse.
ofd Posted August 17, 2018 Posted August 17, 2018 Quote The current situation was created with massive funding to create a resilient communications network in case of nuclear war. Before Al Gore took the initiative in funding one of the generations of the Internet, that's what we were doing with ARPANet in the 80s, and that's why there was a single namespace for domain naming and a central authority for doling out Internet addresses. Platforms / publishers like twitter, facebook, snapchat, youtube, google and so on use existing infrastructure for their business. Creating the basic code for those companies is not the problem, anybody with a few weeks of php knowledge can set up something that looks like facebook or twitter. In fact, setting up a program that allows you to communicate with other users was part of an assignment in a popular php textbook. What sets those companies apart is that they found enough venture capital to get them running and that some (facebook and google) found a way to monetize the network. Almost all other platforms run at a loss. When it comes to those platforms, you have the Pareto principle and the Matthew effect both at work at once. As time goes on that and the difficulties to finance the network with ads leads to natural monopolies. If the biggest platform for sharing short messages or the most popular video provider don't make money then creating a competitor will be very hard to finance. Guess we'll see how conservatives / Liberatarians will react to this threat. My take is that they will cuck out and be the principled loser (muh free markets).
Mat H Physics Posted August 17, 2018 Posted August 17, 2018 It's so funny no one correlates censorship to the original U-tube ban of 2005, DIMITRI KHALEZOV. Not until 2010, was this interview permitted on U-tube.
Meister Posted August 29, 2018 Posted August 29, 2018 How is this the “end of the internet”? I’ve been online since 1992 and never used Twitter or Facebook. Only morons use those services. Just use minds, gab and bitchute.
Recommended Posts