Parler, Big Tech, Debate on Online Speech

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Have you lost your collective fucking minds?

Postby Belligerent Savant » Sun Jan 17, 2021 10:38 pm

DrEvil » Sun Jan 17, 2021 5:45 pm wrote:
Belligerent Savant » Sun Jan 17, 2021 6:43 pm wrote:
DrEvil » Sun Jan 17, 2021 1:10 am wrote:Every fascist regime started out with fascism being tolerated, until suddenly only fascism was tolerated.



Fascist regime! A gathering of rubes is a would-be fascist regime now? What of the fascist regime ALREADY in power?

People here actually believe the incident at the Capitol was an attempt at an insurrection? That even if it wasn't the clear failure it was always going to be, that -- if it somehow, hypothetically succeeded -- it would lead to... a "fascist takeover" of the country?! Wow.

What utter delusion.The fascists have already been 'in the building' for some time now. They've been markedly more overt in the past ~12 months, but fascist actions have been carried out under the false guise of 'democracy' or 'late-stage capitalism' or 'resource expansion' or 'peace-keeping missions' (etc, etc) for many years now.

You're all being played for fools, those of you swallowing the theatrics wholesale.

Instead of critical assessment -- analyzing root causes, for example -- we get this banal pap from Blue, unsurprisingly:



Perpetuating and cheerleading low-brow Establishment narratives. Just as RI always intended, eh?


Rhetorical question: since the advent of social media, the internet, and mobile phone SMS/chats, PRIOR to Parler, how were plans for riots/related activities carried out? What platforms were utilized? What platforms will be utilized regardless of Parler's existence?

Tell me, those of you that are clamoring for the shut down of Parler, that you realize there are other factors at play here. There are far more cynical plays by the influencers of narratives, but many appear to be absorbing the front-facing headlines with nary a hint of discernment.


You may want to reread what I wrote, particularly the last part. It's what Jack said: it was an attempt at more fascism. You're so consumed by your grand conspiracies of nebulous design that you can't see the one happening right in front of you in broad daylight.


I will reply to Jack at a later time -- i'm currently riffing from my mobile and shouldn't even be checking this right now.
I had to chime in on the comedy of referring to current fascist power structures as 'nebulous', but a staged event by a gaggle of largely non-threatening players are the 'true' threat to this (already fascistic) system.

Right.
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 4566
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Have you lost your collective fucking minds?

Postby Belligerent Savant » Sun Jan 17, 2021 10:40 pm

Belligerent Savant » Sun Jan 17, 2021 9:35 pm wrote:
DrEvil » Sun Jan 17, 2021 2:16 pm wrote:
stickdog99 » Sun Jan 17, 2021 6:41 pm wrote:
DrEvil » 17 Jan 2021 06:10 wrote:
Harvey » Sun Jan 17, 2021 2:25 am wrote:
Luther Blissett wrote:Fuck Parker. Fuck any platform that protects fascists. In the future, no truly democratic community would harbor nazis if truly informed and free from old propaganda and lies.


Cannot believe I'm reading this crap. Free speech is the protection of fascism?

How many of you actually read a single word on Parler? Once you've answered that, maybe we could talk about what Parler is or isn't. Anyway, your entire culture is already fascist. Mine too, but I'm not about to start crying out for censorship like a brainwashed idiot.

Think that's a wrap for me, Jack. Is it possible to delete my account so that I can't return to this cess pool?


But he's not wrong. Every fascist regime started out with fascism being tolerated, until suddenly only fascism was tolerated.


So total intolerance is the final solution to fascism?


Intolerance of fascism is step one in preventing fascism from taking root. Why is this so hard to understand? You do not tolerate the people who want to line you up against a wall and shoot you. And piss off with your "final solution" jabs, you clearly need a history lesson or two (hint: guess who came up with the final solution?)


So you're doubling down on your delusions, then.

Fascism has ALREADY taken root, FFS.

I know my history all too well. I'm not the one that may need a refresher.

How did Hitler come into power? What underlying/contributing factors allowed for the accumulation of Germany's power? Did he not have the support of the German populace, prior to his extreme acts?
The parallels are certainly there. Unfortunately you and others are misreading what's in front of you.
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 4566
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Parler, Big Tech, Debate on Online Speech

Postby Belligerent Savant » Sun Jan 17, 2021 11:01 pm

.

Today's Big Tech is Paul Joseph Goebbels' most fervent wet dream.
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 4566
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Parler, Big Tech, Debate on Online Speech

Postby dada » Mon Jan 18, 2021 12:29 am

Big Tech suspended all of Goebbels' accounts, though.
Both his words and manner of speech seemed at first totally unfamiliar to me, and yet somehow they stirred memories - as an actor might be stirred by the forgotten lines of some role he had played far away and long ago.
User avatar
dada
 
Posts: 2600
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 12:08 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Parler, Big Tech, Debate on Online Speech

Postby dada » Mon Jan 18, 2021 1:32 am

"the comedy of referring to current fascist power structures as 'nebulous', but a staged event by a gaggle of largely non-threatening players are the 'true' threat to this (already fascistic) system."

By current fascist power structures, I'm guessing you mean the grand liberal conspiracy. And by 'influencers of narratives,' you mean liberal influencers of narratives. The dystopian architects of the Great Reset are liberals.
Both his words and manner of speech seemed at first totally unfamiliar to me, and yet somehow they stirred memories - as an actor might be stirred by the forgotten lines of some role he had played far away and long ago.
User avatar
dada
 
Posts: 2600
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 12:08 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Parler, Big Tech, Debate on Online Speech

Postby stickdog99 » Mon Jan 18, 2021 2:26 am

dada » 18 Jan 2021 04:29 wrote:Big Tech suspended all of Goebbels' accounts, though.


Thank Zuckerberg!
stickdog99
 
Posts: 5531
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Parler, Big Tech, Debate on Online Speech

Postby Spiro C. Thiery » Mon Jan 18, 2021 4:24 am

https://www.propublica.org/article/why-we-published-parler-users-videos-capitol-attack

You'll need to go to the site for internal links. I don't know how to copy those em masse without a plugin.

Why We Published More Than 500 Videos Taken by Parler Users of the Capitol Riot
This collection of clips from the insurrection, while incomplete, offers a unique experience of the historic event through hundreds of participants' eyes.
by Scott Klein and Jeff Kao Jan. 17, 2:59 p.m. EST

On Sunday, ProPublica published an interactive database that lets users sift through a trove of videos taken during the riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 and uploaded to Parler, the social network popular among supporters of President Donald Trump that was dropped by its web host Amazon earlier this month. We also published an analysis piece about the videos by Alec MacGillis.

Since Parler was terminated by Amazon for its inaction on posts that encouraged and incited violence, we want to explain why we are reviving a subset of this material and why we believe it’s in the public interest for people to see the events of Jan. 6 as documented by, and from the perspective of, Parler users.

First, a few details on the origins of these videos and how we chose which we’d present.

Before Parler went offline, a loose confederation of programmers archived a huge cache of publicly available information from the service before it disappeared indefinitely. One of the programmers, who requested anonymity because of personal safety concerns, downloaded more than 1 million videos that had been posted to Parler — nearly all the videos ever uploaded to the service, according to the programmer.

Using technical data extracted from the videos by the programmer, ProPublica identified roughly 2,500 that were most likely to be footage of the Capitol riot, based in part on when they were captured and their proximity to the building.

ProPublica staffers then reviewed each one taken on Jan. 6, setting aside those that actually weren’t taken near or in the Capitol or didn’t capture anything newsworthy or relevant to what happened there on that day.

That left the more than 500 videos we’ve included in the database, which, together, provide rich new detail to our understanding of this infamous moment in American history.

While providing what might be the most comprehensive record assembled in one place for a historic event of this magnitude, the Parler trove falls well short of being complete: For example, ProPublica has so far only found one video from inside the Senate or House chambers, although news organizations have published photographs of rioters in those rooms holding their phones out as though they were shooting videos.

The videos from Parler range in intensity, from frenetic, violent snippets of people clashing with police near the inaugural platform and rioters demanding to be led to the House chamber where the joint session of Congress was being held, to more prosaic clips of crowd members milling around, far from the action.

A number of the videos capture threats to harm lawmakers, and a handful catch the kinds of behavior — smashing windows, assaulting police — that has led to criminal charges against dozens of people. It is not yet clear if law enforcement officials used the Parler videos to identify suspects, though the programmer says the FBI has access to the material.

Parler attracted an audience that skewed hard to the right, including some who came to the service because they believed Twitter was biased against conservatives. The videos reflect their grievances, their paranoias and, in some cases, their imperviousness to facts. More than one participant says without providing evidence that “Antifa” infiltrated the protest and was responsible for the violence, a claim disproved by many other videos, as well as the subsequent arrests.

The users who posted the videos likely had in mind an audience of like-minded followers on a small social network. Some in the videos perform and boast for the camera, even turning the lens on themselves to do so.

“These were publicly available,” said Claire Wardle, co-founder of First Draft, an organization that specializes in combating online misinformation, “but Parler isn’t Facebook. Are these people performing for their community? They are making decisions about where to angle their phones. When they are pointing their camera, what are they leaving out, what are they including? Don’t forget what isn’t in the frame.”

Seeing the videos assembled together changes what viewers can understand from them, added Jeremy Kutner, ProPublica’s general counsel.

“We believe that presenting this large group of videos is not only undeniably in the public interest but that collecting them in this way is the essence of a transformative fair use under the copyright law,” Kutner said.

Since ProPublica was founded, we have believed in the power of primary source material, and data, as evidence. We’re releasing this material so that people who weren’t on Parler, and who can’t write code or easily navigate digital archives, can take stock of it.

“The thing that happened at the Capitol was bigger than any person or organization,” the programmer told us. “And more eyes are better than fewer.”
Seeing the world through rose-colored latex.
User avatar
Spiro C. Thiery
 
Posts: 546
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 2:58 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Have you lost your collective fucking minds?

Postby Joe Hillshoist » Mon Jan 18, 2021 8:27 am

Harvey » 17 Jan 2021 10:25 wrote:
Luther Blissett wrote:Fuck Parker. Fuck any platform that protects fascists. In the future, no truly democratic community would harbor nazis if truly informed and free from old propaganda and lies.


Cannot believe I'm reading this crap. Free speech is the protection of fascism?

How many of you actually read a single word on Parler? Once you've answered that, maybe we could talk about what Parler is or isn't. Anyway, your entire culture is already fascist. Mine too, but I'm not about to start crying out for censorship like a brainwashed idiot.

Think that's a wrap for me, Jack. Is it possible to delete my account so that I can't return to this cess pool?


What parler is is a cheap attempt to cash in that got alot of its users into big trouble with the feds. Its not wikileaks. There was no attempt to protect people's identities.

Remember when there were discussion boards like this everywhere, and blogs and no modern social media trying to curate everything into the one place? This desire for convenience has warped people's brains. Especially the wingnuts on parler who didn't bother taking precautions about their own identity and security.

The real message of this is that if you must online comms use secure apps like signal and burner phones.
Joe Hillshoist
 
Posts: 10406
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Have you lost your collective fucking minds?

Postby Spiro C. Thiery » Mon Jan 18, 2021 8:41 am

Joe Hillshoist » 8 minutes ago wrote:
The real message of this is that if you must online comms use secure apps like signal and burner phones.


https://yasha.substack.com/p/signal-is-a-government-op-85e

Signal is a government op
Signal was created and funded by a CIA spinoff. It is not your friend.
Yasha Levine Jan 16

Signal — the privacy chat app favored by the world’s leading crypto experts — is trending again. In the wake of Twitter and Facebook’s MAGA Maidan Internet purge (which was followed by Facebook’s announcement that it was gonna start siphoning data off its WhatsApp property), Signal shot up to being the top downloaded messenger app on the planet.

The New York Times is writing about it. Edward Snowden is tweeting about it, telling his fans that Signal is the only reason he’s able to stay alive (and not the fact that he’s being protected round-the-clock by Russia’s security apparatus.) Hell, Even Elon Musk is out there telling people to go Signal. So many people are flooding the app that it’s been crashing.

Elon Musk @elonmusk
"Use Signal"
January 7th 2021
48,655 Retweets 363,262 Likes

Given that the app is blowing up, I figure it’s a good time to roll out my periodic public service announcement: Signal was created and funded by a CIA spinoff. Yes, a CIA spinoff. Signal is not your friend.

Here are the cold hard facts.

Signal was developed by Open Whisper Systems, a for-profit corporation run by “Moxie Marlinspike,” a tall, lanky cryptographer who has a head full of dreadlocks and likes to surf and sail his boat. Moxie was an old friend of Tor’s now-banished chief radical promotor Jacob Appelbaum, and he’s played a similar fake-radical game — although he’s never been able to match Jake’s raw talent and dedication to the art of the con. Still, Moxie wraps himself in air of danger and mystery and hassles reporters about not divulging any personal information, not even his age. He constantly talks up his fear of Big Brother and tells stories about his FBI file.

So how big a threat is Moxie to the federal government?

This big: After selling his encryption start-up to Twitter in 2011, Moxie began partnering with America’s soft-power regime change apparatus — including the State Department and the Broadcasting Board of Governors (now called the U.S. Agency for Global Media) — on developing tech to fight Internet censorship abroad. That relationship led to his next venture: a suite of government-funded encrypted chat and voice mobile apps. Say hello to Signal.

If you look at Signal’s website today, you’ll find all sorts of celebrity endorsements — Edward Snowden, Laura Poitras, and even Jack Dorsey. You’ll also find a “donate” button — which, by the way, you shouldn’t press because Signal has plenty of tech oligarch cash on hand these days. What you won’t find is an “about” section that explains Signal’s origin story — a story that involves several million dollars in seed and development capital from Radio Free Asia, a CIA spinoff whose history goes back to 1951 and involves all sorts of weird shit, including its association in the 1970s with the Moonies, the hardcore anti-communist Korean cult.

Exactly how much cash Signal got from the U.S. government is hard to gauge, as Moxie and Open Whisper System have been opaque about the sources of Signal’s funding. But if you tally up the information that’s been publicly released by the Open Technology Fund, the Radio Free Asia conduit that funded Signal, we know that Moxie’s outfit received at least $3 million over the span of four years — from 2013 through 2016. That’s the minimum Signal got from the feds.

Three mil might not seem like much these days, especially because Signal recently got a huge infusion of WhatsApp oligarch cash to keep its operation going. But it’s important to know that without this early U.S. government seed money, there would be no Signal today. And that makes you think: If Signal’s super crypto tech truly posed a threat to the feds and to our oligarchy’s power, why would the feds bankroll its creation? And why would Facebook and Google rush to adopt its super-secure protocols? H’mmmmm…

As you can see from the way Parler was shutdown last week — when our imperial oligarchy wants to cancel an app, it can do so instantly and with a vengeance. But Signal lives on and thrives, despite it being a supposed threat to the almighty surveillance powers of the United States of America.

What is Radio Free Asia and the Open Technology Fund? And why would the U.S government fund crypto tech like Signal? On top of that, why would Silicon Valley — built as it is on for-profit surveillance — embrace Signal’s supposedly unbreakable privacy tech?

I’ve written at length about the deeper history of Signal’s government backers and the way in which crypto fits into America’s imperial machine. In fact, I dedicated two whole chapters of my book to the subject. I won’t reprint it here. But if you want to know the whole story, you can pick up Surveillance Valley at your local bookstore.
Seeing the world through rose-colored latex.
User avatar
Spiro C. Thiery
 
Posts: 546
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 2:58 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Parler, Big Tech, Debate on Online Speech

Postby dada » Mon Jan 18, 2021 4:17 pm

"Thank Zuckerberg!"

You go ahead. I'm not really into social media. Too confining for my taste.
Both his words and manner of speech seemed at first totally unfamiliar to me, and yet somehow they stirred memories - as an actor might be stirred by the forgotten lines of some role he had played far away and long ago.
User avatar
dada
 
Posts: 2600
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 12:08 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Have you lost your collective fucking minds?

Postby DrEvil » Mon Jan 18, 2021 4:36 pm

Belligerent Savant » Mon Jan 18, 2021 4:35 am wrote:
DrEvil » Sun Jan 17, 2021 2:16 pm wrote:
stickdog99 » Sun Jan 17, 2021 6:41 pm wrote:
DrEvil » 17 Jan 2021 06:10 wrote:
Harvey » Sun Jan 17, 2021 2:25 am wrote:
Luther Blissett wrote:Fuck Parker. Fuck any platform that protects fascists. In the future, no truly democratic community would harbor nazis if truly informed and free from old propaganda and lies.


Cannot believe I'm reading this crap. Free speech is the protection of fascism?

How many of you actually read a single word on Parler? Once you've answered that, maybe we could talk about what Parler is or isn't. Anyway, your entire culture is already fascist. Mine too, but I'm not about to start crying out for censorship like a brainwashed idiot.

Think that's a wrap for me, Jack. Is it possible to delete my account so that I can't return to this cess pool?


But he's not wrong. Every fascist regime started out with fascism being tolerated, until suddenly only fascism was tolerated.


So total intolerance is the final solution to fascism?


Intolerance of fascism is step one in preventing fascism from taking root. Why is this so hard to understand? You do not tolerate the people who want to line you up against a wall and shoot you. And piss off with your "final solution" jabs, you clearly need a history lesson or two (hint: guess who came up with the final solution?)


So you're doubling down on your delusions, then.

Fascism has ALREADY taken root, FFS.

I know my history all too well. I'm not the one that may need a refresher.

How did Hitler come into power? What underlying/contributing factors allowed for the accumulation of Germany's power? Did he not have the support of the German populace, prior to his extreme acts?
The parallels are certainly there. Unfortunately you and others are misreading what's in front of you.


Yes, fascism was already there, but covertly, hiding behind the illusion of democracy. The storming of the Capitol was fascism taking its mask off, and a frankly scary number of people are fine with that.

The Beer Belly Putsch didn't happen in a vacuum, it was encouraged, financed and facilitated by the fascist power structures already in place. It was the fascists you are worried about testing the waters. It's all the same thing.
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 3640
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Parler, Big Tech, Debate on Online Speech

Postby Belligerent Savant » Tue Jan 19, 2021 12:55 am

.

I'll have additional thoughts, perhaps, next time I have [more] free time to type, but for now: came across the below quoted excerpts from G.Greenwald's comments on Chris Hedges' show On Contact.




Assess as you may deem fit.

Greenwald:

"The most disturbing event yet beyond as we discussed earlier, Facebook and Twitter's unity in blocking the New York Post reporting [on Hunter Biden], is the fact that Amazon, Apple, and Google -- three of the four companies that a Democratic House Subcommittee, just three months ago, declared to be dangerous, monopolist, and illegal anti-trust, anti-competitors in a really comprehensive report that they issued -- united to remove from the internet a competitor to Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram that had become the most popular app downloaded on the Apple Store, which is Parler, on the grounds that Parler played a role in inciting or agitating for the capital breach and the riot that occurred on January 6th, even though it was their own properties like Google's YouTube and Facebook that played a much, much bigger role. They simply destroyed a competing platform at the urging of people like Congressman Ro Khanna, Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. They issued demands for it on Twitter, and within 72-hours, Parler was gone from the internet."

...

"Joe Biden has been at the national political level since 1972. So we're talking about essentially 50 years. He has a very clear record of who he is, somebody who has repeatedly supported militarism and imperialism. He obviously was one of the crucial leading advocates in the invasion of Iraq as Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 2002. He, coming from Delaware, has been a very loyal servant of the credit card and banking industry, architecting the bill that Elizabeth Warren said made her so angry that she entered politics, which was the bill that made it much more difficult for consumers to discharge debt and bankruptcy. Obviously, he is the architect of the 1994 Crime Bill, which is so ironic in a year when we had months and months of protests, largely from the Left against the police state and against racist police abuses, that the person who is probably more responsible than any other single person for that became the person behind whom they rallied."

"And then you add on to that eight years of the Obama administration of which Biden was a crucial part of that, as you said, which he's clearly attempting consciously to replicate. I think people have forgotten what the Obama administration is like. The Democrats are very good at creating a brand that is radically different than the reality. But essentially the Democratic Party serves militarism, imperialism, and corporatism. That's who funds them. That's what they believe in. It's why you see neocons migrating so comfortably back to the Democratic Party, why you see... operatives cheering for Joe Biden, why Wall Street celebrated when he picked Kamala Harris, who of course has her own background as a harsh prosecutor. I think it's very easy to see exactly who they are."

...if you go back and do exactly the same thing that the O'Biden administration did for eight years, which is what Biden is preparing to do, any rational person has to expect the same outcome. The same outcome being the middle class continues to be destroyed, companies that have no allegiance to the United States that will take as many jobs as possible and shift them to places where they can pay slave labor will continue to do so, communities will continue to be ravaged with unemployment, crisis with drug addiction, with suicide, with depression, all the things that are dominating small American towns, rural towns, and increasingly even larger ones. And that anger and dissatisfaction is going to only continue to grow so that when you have a smarter more stable version of Donald Trump tapping into that populace anger, promising them to close the United States, to give them better lives, it's going to be even more appealing this time around."

"I mean, one of the big causes of the Left during the 2020 election -- it was one that I supported, was working to help Ed Markey, the long-time congressman, now senator from Massachusetts -- defeat a primary challenge nominally from his Right on the part of Congressman Joe Kennedy III. He became a hero of the Left. And right after he won, his primary and general election, there was a hearing convened where they called Silicon Valley leaders, including Mark Zuckerberg to testify before a committee, on which Senator Markey sits, and he told Mark Zuckerberg, 'Unlike my Republican colleagues who are complaining about censorship, we don't believe that the problem is that you're censoring too much. We believe the problem is you're not censoring enough'. And then proceeded to show him a bunch of content on Facebook that Markey thinks is dangerous or extremist speech that he demanded be censored. Obama delivered a speech a couple months before the election in which he says he believes the internet is the greatest threat to American democracy because of the role it's playing in disseminating misinformation."

...

"So the Democratic Party, including its Liberal wing and its Left-wing, are very much on board with idea that we cannot have free speech in this age of, whatever they want to call it, White supremacy, domestic terrorism, right-wing extremism, because it simply too dangerous. And not only should the free speech be restricted by laws and acted by Congress, which presumably would have to mean amending the First Amendment, but until then they're on their knees pleading with billionaires, and oligarchs, and monopolists, and Silicon Valley to censor in the way that they believe is politically advantageous. And this was true, as you said, even before the election. I honestly think, Chris, that one of the most momentous moments of the last five or six years was when the New York Post started reporting on documents that, to this day, everyone acknowledges are completely authentic. And the intelligence community invented a lie that it was Russian disinformation, which immediately pressured or gave the pretext to Twitter and Facebook to ban report it."

...

"I found it really interesting that numerous world leaders, including ones who have famously acrimonious relationship with President Trump, stood up and very vehemently denounced Twitter's decision and Facebook's decision to ban President Trump from the platform. That includes Chancellor Angela Merkel, who's a center-right politician with whom Trump has argued and bickered almost his entire presidency. It includes President Lopez Obrador in Mexico, who's a leftist president, who very eloquently and vehemently warned that Silicon Valley is becoming essentially a world media leader. Something greater than nation states, and ministers high up in the Macron government in France, obviously who also don't love Donald Trump, denounced it in similar terms. Why? Because they're extremely concerned that these private tech monopolists who they cannot battle -- the EU has been trying to break up Google and break up Facebook for years, and they simply can't because they're too powerful -- are also coming for their democracies."

User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 4566
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Parler, Big Tech, Debate on Online Speech

Postby dada » Tue Jan 19, 2021 2:26 am

"Something greater than nation states"

Sounds pretty big.
Both his words and manner of speech seemed at first totally unfamiliar to me, and yet somehow they stirred memories - as an actor might be stirred by the forgotten lines of some role he had played far away and long ago.
User avatar
dada
 
Posts: 2600
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 12:08 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Oh Karlheinz!

Postby annie aronburg » Tue Jan 19, 2021 5:37 am

Why We Published More Than 500 Videos Taken by Parler Users of the Capitol Riot
This collection of clips from the insurrection, while incomplete, offers a unique experience of the historic event through hundreds of participants' eyes.



Not to Stockhausen the thread, but this Pro-Publica piece is a breathtaking bit of nu-media multi-meta collaborative auto-pwn 3-D meme-oir.

Be-Eh-En-Eh-En-Eh-ESS!
"O Oysters," said the Carpenter,
"You've had a pleasant run!
Shall we be trotting home again?'
But answer came there none--
And this was scarcely odd, because
They'd eaten every one.
User avatar
annie aronburg
 
Posts: 1406
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2007 8:57 pm
Location: Smokanagan
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Have you lost your collective fucking minds?

Postby Joe Hillshoist » Tue Jan 19, 2021 8:40 am

Spiro C. Thiery » 18 Jan 2021 22:41 wrote:
Joe Hillshoist » 8 minutes ago wrote:
The real message of this is that if you must online comms use secure apps like signal and burner phones.


https://yasha.substack.com/p/signal-is-a-government-op-85e

Signal is a government op
Signal was created and funded by a CIA spinoff. It is not your friend.
Yasha Levine Jan 16

Signal — the privacy chat app favored by the world’s leading crypto experts — is trending again. In the wake of Twitter and Facebook’s MAGA Maidan Internet purge (which was followed by Facebook’s announcement that it was gonna start siphoning data off its WhatsApp property), Signal shot up to being the top downloaded messenger app on the planet.

The New York Times is writing about it. Edward Snowden is tweeting about it, telling his fans that Signal is the only reason he’s able to stay alive (and not the fact that he’s being protected round-the-clock by Russia’s security apparatus.) Hell, Even Elon Musk is out there telling people to go Signal. So many people are flooding the app that it’s been crashing.

Elon Musk @elonmusk
"Use Signal"
January 7th 2021
48,655 Retweets 363,262 Likes

Given that the app is blowing up, I figure it’s a good time to roll out my periodic public service announcement: Signal was created and funded by a CIA spinoff. Yes, a CIA spinoff. Signal is not your friend.

Here are the cold hard facts.

Signal was developed by Open Whisper Systems, a for-profit corporation run by “Moxie Marlinspike,” a tall, lanky cryptographer who has a head full of dreadlocks and likes to surf and sail his boat. Moxie was an old friend of Tor’s now-banished chief radical promotor Jacob Appelbaum, and he’s played a similar fake-radical game — although he’s never been able to match Jake’s raw talent and dedication to the art of the con. Still, Moxie wraps himself in air of danger and mystery and hassles reporters about not divulging any personal information, not even his age. He constantly talks up his fear of Big Brother and tells stories about his FBI file.

So how big a threat is Moxie to the federal government?

This big: After selling his encryption start-up to Twitter in 2011, Moxie began partnering with America’s soft-power regime change apparatus — including the State Department and the Broadcasting Board of Governors (now called the U.S. Agency for Global Media) — on developing tech to fight Internet censorship abroad. That relationship led to his next venture: a suite of government-funded encrypted chat and voice mobile apps. Say hello to Signal.

If you look at Signal’s website today, you’ll find all sorts of celebrity endorsements — Edward Snowden, Laura Poitras, and even Jack Dorsey. You’ll also find a “donate” button — which, by the way, you shouldn’t press because Signal has plenty of tech oligarch cash on hand these days. What you won’t find is an “about” section that explains Signal’s origin story — a story that involves several million dollars in seed and development capital from Radio Free Asia, a CIA spinoff whose history goes back to 1951 and involves all sorts of weird shit, including its association in the 1970s with the Moonies, the hardcore anti-communist Korean cult.

Exactly how much cash Signal got from the U.S. government is hard to gauge, as Moxie and Open Whisper System have been opaque about the sources of Signal’s funding. But if you tally up the information that’s been publicly released by the Open Technology Fund, the Radio Free Asia conduit that funded Signal, we know that Moxie’s outfit received at least $3 million over the span of four years — from 2013 through 2016. That’s the minimum Signal got from the feds.

Three mil might not seem like much these days, especially because Signal recently got a huge infusion of WhatsApp oligarch cash to keep its operation going. But it’s important to know that without this early U.S. government seed money, there would be no Signal today. And that makes you think: If Signal’s super crypto tech truly posed a threat to the feds and to our oligarchy’s power, why would the feds bankroll its creation? And why would Facebook and Google rush to adopt its super-secure protocols? H’mmmmm…

As you can see from the way Parler was shutdown last week — when our imperial oligarchy wants to cancel an app, it can do so instantly and with a vengeance. But Signal lives on and thrives, despite it being a supposed threat to the almighty surveillance powers of the United States of America.

What is Radio Free Asia and the Open Technology Fund? And why would the U.S government fund crypto tech like Signal? On top of that, why would Silicon Valley — built as it is on for-profit surveillance — embrace Signal’s supposedly unbreakable privacy tech?

I’ve written at length about the deeper history of Signal’s government backers and the way in which crypto fits into America’s imperial machine. In fact, I dedicated two whole chapters of my book to the subject. I won’t reprint it here. But if you want to know the whole story, you can pick up Surveillance Valley at your local bookstore.

About a week ago someone told me something similar. Said there is another one starting with s but i don't remember its name.
Joe Hillshoist
 
Posts: 10406
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests