Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Idaho internet provider blocks Facebook, Twitter

kgw.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–15 of 15 posts

Re: Idaho internet provider blocks Facebook, Twitter

#11

Post by [deleted] »

rendall wrote: post #9
balazspapp wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Actually, Facebook and Twitter, just like Google et al, are the product of intelligence agencies." Only "product of" expression may be questionable. Probably much effective to infiltrate big companies after take off. But, may anyone reasonably assume that centralized data has any protection against intelligence agencies at the end of the day?

> But, may anyone reasonably assume that centralized data has any protection against intelligence agencies at the end of the day? To save myself from vague, inchoate paranoia about them I prefer to concretize such speculation. What is and is not possible? General rule: don't give anyone data you care about keeping secret or private unless you have a clear understanding of their security procedures. I assume any data…

[deleted]

Re: Idaho internet provider blocks Facebook, Twitter

#12

Post by getitstraight »

rendall wrote: post #9
balazspapp wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Actually, Facebook and Twitter, just like Google et al, are the product of intelligence agencies." Only "product of" expression may be questionable. Probably much effective to infiltrate big companies after take off. But, may anyone reasonably assume that centralized data has any protection against intelligence agencies at the end of the day?

> But, may anyone reasonably assume that centralized data has any protection against intelligence agencies at the end of the day? To save myself from vague, inchoate paranoia about them I prefer to concretize such speculation. What is and is not possible? General rule: don't give anyone data you care about keeping secret or private unless you have a clear understanding of their security procedures. I assume any data…

> 'To save myself from vague, inchoate paranoia'

To save yourself from 'vague, inchoate paranoia', you instead took a nosedive into cluelessness and naivete.

"I've got nothing to hide" won't save you, because it's exactly the fact that you have 'nothing to hide' that makes you so utterly contemptible to the very evil people who own your mind, body, and soul. Your ignorance and complacency, in their opinion, is one of many damning factors making you unworthy of life. To them (and to me, honestly), you are nothing more than a "useless eater."

This is why they are working so diligently to exterminate you--after they've used you, of course, to do as much damage as possible to those who preach truth.

To make it clear: the only value you personally have in this world, to your owners, is that you make them money. The only reason you are allowed to live is so that you may serve them. As soon as your usefulness has expired, you will be tossed into the fire. "Having nothing to hide" not only won't save you, it will fuck you.

Re: Idaho internet provider blocks Facebook, Twitter

#13

Post by rendall »

getitstraight wrote: post #12
rendall wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But, may anyone reasonably assume that centralized data has any protection against intelligence agencies at the end of the day? To save myself from vague, inchoate paranoia about them I prefer to concretize such speculation. What is and is not possible? General rule: don't give anyone data you care about keeping secret or private unless you have a clear understanding of their security procedures. I assume any data…

> 'To save myself from vague, inchoate paranoia' To save yourself from 'vague, inchoate paranoia', you instead took a nosedive into cluelessness and naivete. "I've got nothing to hide" won't save you, because it's exactly the fact that you have 'nothing to hide' that makes you so utterly contemptible to the very evil people who own your mind, body, and soul. Your ignorance and complacency, in their opinion, is one of…

Hi, getitstraight

You're new around here. Welcome!

You might be used to a Twitter style dismissiveness, but do read the guidelines. People take them seriously. It makes this a unique forum. Not perfect, but generally considerate

> I've got nothing to hide" won't save you

This is true. It's also a non-sequitur. You're arguing against a very easy, stupid argument that I did not make, and you argued it rather aggressively. How about you quote the specific sentences that led you to this, and we'll sort it out together.

Again, welcome!

Re: Idaho internet provider blocks Facebook, Twitter

#14

Post by getitstraight »

rendall wrote: post #13
getitstraight wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 'To save myself from vague, inchoate paranoia' To save yourself from 'vague, inchoate paranoia', you instead took a nosedive into cluelessness and naivete. "I've got nothing to hide" won't save you, because it's exactly the fact that you have 'nothing to hide' that makes you so utterly contemptible to the very evil people who own your mind, body, and soul. Your ignorance and complacency, in their opinion, is one of…

Hi, getitstraight You're new around here. Welcome! You might be used to a Twitter style dismissiveness, but do read the guidelines. People take them seriously. It makes this a unique forum. Not perfect, but generally considerate > I've got nothing to hide" won't save you This is true. It's also a non-sequitur. You're arguing against a very easy, stupid argument that I did not make, and you argued it rather aggressive…

> 'You're new around here. Welcome!'

No, I'm not new around here, and your disingenuous 'welcome' is unhelpful and unwelcome.

> 'You might be used to a Twitter style dismissiveness, but do read the guidelines. People take them seriously.'

I don't post on Twitter, but THAAAAAAAANKS.

> 'This is true. It's also a non-sequitur. You're arguing against a very easy, stupid argument that I did not make'

Yes, that is exactly the argument that you obviously did make. Just like all the other extremely naive tools always do.

> 'and you argued it rather aggressively.'

So what?

> 'How about you quote the specific sentences that led you to this, and we'll sort it out together.'

Sort what out together? Your cowardice? Your naivete? Sort that out for yourself. I only posted to demonstrate to others your foolishness.

Re: Idaho internet provider blocks Facebook, Twitter

#15

Post by youdontlisten »

rendall wrote: post #13
getitstraight wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 'To save myself from vague, inchoate paranoia' To save yourself from 'vague, inchoate paranoia', you instead took a nosedive into cluelessness and naivete. "I've got nothing to hide" won't save you, because it's exactly the fact that you have 'nothing to hide' that makes you so utterly contemptible to the very evil people who own your mind, body, and soul. Your ignorance and complacency, in their opinion, is one of…

Hi, getitstraight You're new around here. Welcome! You might be used to a Twitter style dismissiveness, but do read the guidelines. People take them seriously. It makes this a unique forum. Not perfect, but generally considerate > I've got nothing to hide" won't save you This is true. It's also a non-sequitur. You're arguing against a very easy, stupid argument that I did not make, and you argued it rather aggressive…

> 'You're new around here. Welcome!' No, I'm not new around here, and your disingenuous 'welcome' is unhelpful and unwelcome.

> 'You might be used to a Twitter style dismissiveness, but do read the guidelines. People take them seriously.'

I don't post on Twitter, but THAAAAAAAANKS.

> 'This is true. It's also a non-sequitur. You're arguing against a very easy, stupid argument that I did not make'

Yes, that is exactly the argument that you obviously did make. Just like all the other extremely naive tools always do.

> 'and you argued it rather aggressively.'

So what? PUSSY.

Post reply on HN