41–50 of 66 posts
Why does "left to market" seem to imply "less protected"? I have much more trust in my connection with five competing ISPs than I would have with five regulators. I also find communication with the customer retention department smoother and more productive than trying to figure out which complaint form I need to fill.
Perhaps because markets are meant to optimize for profit, and not necessarily freedom?
Why does "left to market" seem to imply "less protected"? I have much more trust in my connection with five competing ISPs than I would have with five regulators. I also find communication with the customer retention department smoother and more productive than trying to figure out which complaint form I need to fill.
Perhaps because markets are meant to optimize for profit, and not necessarily freedom?
Why does "left to market" seem to imply "less protected"? I have much more trust in my connection with five competing ISPs than I would have with five regulators. I also find communication with the customer retention department smoother and more productive than trying to figure out which complaint form I need to fill.
Perhaps because markets are meant to optimize for profit, and not necessarily freedom?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>As of this year Putin is now requiring bloggers to register if they have a certain number of readers, so that his administration can curtail international misinformation. Yeah, totally, and not because the massive protests in late 2011-early 2012 were partly organized by a blogger/activist. Some of these attempts at what you call "preventing NSA/other evil foreign agency collecting our citizen's data" are more like…
This is a fallacy of the excluded middle. If the blogger was in fact a domestic blogger (was it?), it can in fact be both about domestic efforts to organize and international influence. The United States and allies have other ways of handling domestic movements, like Fusion Centers and Free Speech Zones (in the US) and partnerships and leverage on media providers.
Maybe I'm just a dumb american but at least my protectionist nannystate allows me to watch the "bad" tv channels.
I'm just reminded of a quote from Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri:
"As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
I am quite sure whole EU has a net-neutrality law. http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-26865869
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your comment comes across as China is just avoiding the West's intelligence services but most of their censorship is for internal control. You don't ban all reference to June 4th because you are protecting your citizens from the NSA.
The blocking of Facebook and Google is directly related to PRISM, social contagion theory, international surveillance, and weaponized media. These issues are extremely complex and no single article or HN comment is going to cover it in it's entirety. I think the second bullet point is awfully good justification for China to have a 'less free internet score'. I'm definitely not going to claim that China doesn't engage…
Google wasn't blocked in China until the company refused to censor their search results back in 2010. Facebook wasn't blocked until Uygher activists started using it as a communications network during riots back in 2009. Social networks that allow the government unlimited power to snoop on messages and censor content are still widely used.
China's internet censorship has absolutely nothing to do with the United States' surveillance and has everything to do with the Chinese Communist Party controlling its citizens. It's completely misleading to frame it as anything else.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a fallacy of the excluded middle. If the blogger was in fact a domestic blogger (was it?), it can in fact be both about domestic efforts to organize and international influence. The United States and allies have other ways of handling domestic movements, like Fusion Centers and Free Speech Zones (in the US) and partnerships and leverage on media providers.
Meanwhile as an american I can freely watch russia today on youtube, read presstv without a proxy, and hang out on conspiracy websites like globalresearch.ca and infowars.com. Maybe I'm just a dumb american but at least my protectionist nannystate allows me to watch the "bad" tv channels. I'm just reminded of a quote from Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri: "As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, fre…
The US government nudges public opinion (Fallujah PsyOp, Judith Miller, Ken Dilanian, operation MOCKINGBIRD, purposeful placement of objective aligned messages on international media lines, "Heroes in Error", partners with astroturfing services/HBGary).
It breeds capabilities to influence individuals and groups (NSA JTRIG, GCHQ BIRDSONG/BADGER/GATEWAY/SLIPSTREAM/ETC, MINERVA) and will wield capabilities to track and target information to groups in limited circumstances ("The Cave").
It also will quiet groups, even if they are domestic, that significantly challenge the stability or justifiability of the nation/system/structure (COINTELPRO, MINARET, Fusion Centers).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The blocking of Facebook and Google is directly related to PRISM, social contagion theory, international surveillance, and weaponized media. These issues are extremely complex and no single article or HN comment is going to cover it in it's entirety. I think the second bullet point is awfully good justification for China to have a 'less free internet score'. I'm definitely not going to claim that China doesn't engage…
>The blocking of Facebook and Google is directly related to PRISM, social contagion theory, international surveillance, and weaponized media. Google wasn't blocked in China until the company refused to censor their search results back in 2010. Facebook wasn't blocked until Uygher activists started using it as a communications network during riots back in 2009. Social networks that allow the government unlimited power…
China can and does filter content at a packet level and TLS 'strong encryption' doesn't protect you when CAs are both owned by the government, proprietary Chinese drivers run on Operating Systems, the large companies provide hardware backdoor access to the government (US bans Lenovo for government use for this reason), and networking companies likewise provide all hands access.
Just like any other internet service, China can filter FB/Google content directly - though it is easier with partnership and alas FB/Google has allied themselves with the US.
Why does "left to market" seem to imply "less protected"? I have much more trust in my connection with five competing ISPs than I would have with five regulators. I also find communication with the customer retention department smoother and more productive than trying to figure out which complaint form I need to fill.
Well if you let things unregulated, it might work, or it might not.. think Comcast, or Lehman Brothers.. thats one of the reasons why we have Governments; Given that companies working for profit its not necessarily equal to common good, specially when theres monopoly
There is a lot freedom in Poland, only because our retarded government has figure out yet how powerful internet is.
Poland and others that suffered under Communism know first hand how bad it can be and value their new life, Hong Kong is going in the other direction unfortunately.