101–110 of 128 posts
It is not deliberate from Facebook. See: https://blog.torproject.org/blog/facebook-and-tor
"A number of users have noticed that Facebook is blocking connections from the Tor network. Facebook is not blocking Tor deliberately. However, a high volume of malicious activity across Tor exit nodes triggered Facebook's site integrity systems which are designed to protect people who use the service. Tor and Facebook are working together to find a resolution."
It is not deliberate from Facebook. See: https://blog.torproject.org/blog/facebook-and-tor
The privatized 'public' space makes an inevitable move. Facebook can no longer stake any preposterous claim to "help people connect better". It is a business entity - always has been - and does not give half a damn about "making the world a better place", or whatever corporate marketing catchphrase they use right now. Related to recent events or not, the privatized internet is continuing to backlash with severe conse…
An anarchist collective wrote something you may find interesting on this subject, "The Internet as New Enclosure Digitized Capitalism, the Attention Economy, and the Surveillance State"[1] although I doubt the author(s) would agree that any enclosure of public space is "inevitable" as you put it.
It is not deliberate from Facebook. See: https://blog.torproject.org/blog/facebook-and-tor
This needs to be the top comment. Way too many wacko conspiracy theorists in this thread.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not necessarily - if their goal is to get Facebook to reverse the change (which I imagine it is based on the fact that the website is based in an area with a lot of civil unrest), then providing reasonable rationalization in the article isn't what you want to do.
In that case this isn't journalism but propaganda (even if its the good kind). Lobbyists do the same thing yet we all hate them for it, these guys shouldn't get a free pass and get to call it journalism if they aren't portraying both sides. Edit: fixed mobile typos
The privatized 'public' space makes an inevitable move. Facebook can no longer stake any preposterous claim to "help people connect better". It is a business entity - always has been - and does not give half a damn about "making the world a better place", or whatever corporate marketing catchphrase they use right now. Related to recent events or not, the privatized internet is continuing to backlash with severe conse…
I for one am immensely proud to be part of the civilization that created the free and open Internet, and will fight tooth and nail to keep such an option available to people.
Why the hell would someone using TOR use Facebook?
Before the downvote brigade comes out in full force, stop and think a second. The US government is building its own map of all our social connections for everyone worldwide, not just suspects but everyone. It will know the names of everyone you know, how well you know them, even down to the date that you met them and dates that you were in the same location together. Why WOULD anyone who cares about their anonymity u…
Because, as much as you shout and holler about your privacy being violated, and as much as you act like you value said privacy, you're more than willing to give it up for a modicum of convenience.
You, me, and everyone else. Anyone who still uses a 3rd party to handle unencrypted data they expect to remain private is simply uninformed. Period.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> just like Verizon and AT&T. As an European I never understood what is the "strategic" interest of Washington to protect the telecom companies. This might have made sense 20 years ago, but now that these companies tend to become like any other utility companies I don't see why the Government would care if they break up or if new (possibly foreign) competitors appear.
Because I think yashkadakia's Google link was too oblique a response, here's my answer: the concerns are that A) a foreign owned U.S. telecom might refuse to provide the data NSA or other government agencies want (or reveal that they had been asked) and B) a foreign owned U.S. telecom might do the same sort of spying on behalf of their "home" country.