Idaho internet provider blocks Facebook, Twitter(kgw.com)
kgw.com
Idaho internet provider blocks Facebook, Twitter
https://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/technology/idaho-internet-provider-blocks-facebook-and-twitter/293-867cc22b-fb90-4142-a296-8d800d2a03fb
14 comments
dupe: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25738457
Local news websites are just the absolute worst.
> 'Because Twitter and Facebook are private companies, their bans on the President do not violate the First Amendment, which protects speech from being limited by the government.'
Actually, Facebook and Twitter, just like Google et al, are the product of intelligence agencies.
Completely changes the meaning of everything that is said or written about these 'companies', when you understand this.
There's a reason China blocks FB, and it has nothing to do with "censorship." Yes, it is really about protecting their citizens from data mining by foreign intelligence agencies.
I think this ISP's action is a good first step, but they don't go far enough. What people really need right now is a new-age Information Service which is not an "internet service provider" at all, or is only such in the loosest sense of the term; a service that gathers up useful data and information from the internet and other sources also, datamining and collating it and presenting in a convenient form for the customer, minus all the ads, Javascript, malware, etc. Sort of like a CompuServe/AOL/DMOZ/BBS renaissance. Limited direct access could be provided to certain whitelisted internet sites, with the vast majority of the cruft excluded.
Actually, Facebook and Twitter, just like Google et al, are the product of intelligence agencies.
Completely changes the meaning of everything that is said or written about these 'companies', when you understand this.
There's a reason China blocks FB, and it has nothing to do with "censorship." Yes, it is really about protecting their citizens from data mining by foreign intelligence agencies.
I think this ISP's action is a good first step, but they don't go far enough. What people really need right now is a new-age Information Service which is not an "internet service provider" at all, or is only such in the loosest sense of the term; a service that gathers up useful data and information from the internet and other sources also, datamining and collating it and presenting in a convenient form for the customer, minus all the ads, Javascript, malware, etc. Sort of like a CompuServe/AOL/DMOZ/BBS renaissance. Limited direct access could be provided to certain whitelisted internet sites, with the vast majority of the cruft excluded.
"Actually, Facebook and Twitter, just like Google et al, are the product of intelligence agencies."
That sounds nuts. You don't have any evidence, do you?
That sounds nuts. You don't have any evidence, do you?
"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?
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 I hand over to any organization is available to anyone else, particularly a mafia or government, unless extraordinary, auditable measures are taken: e2e encryption, open-source, 2fa, etc and the organization has an incentive to keep its clients data safe and/or secret. I trust my personal bank to keep my data safe from the mafia, but I also trust that it will hand over data to law enforcement if warranted. I doubt the NSA has a dashboard that can just look up my spending habits but maybe? I'm not really worried about their looking at my grocery bills, personally, more the effect of unlimited surveillance on society as a whole
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 I hand over to any organization is available to anyone else, particularly a mafia or government, unless extraordinary, auditable measures are taken: e2e encryption, open-source, 2fa, etc and the organization has an incentive to keep its clients data safe and/or secret. I trust my personal bank to keep my data safe from the mafia, but I also trust that it will hand over data to law enforcement if warranted. I doubt the NSA has a dashboard that can just look up my spending habits but maybe? I'm not really worried about their looking at my grocery bills, personally, more the effect of unlimited surveillance on society as a whole
> '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.
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.
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!
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!
[deleted]
Normally I am fiercely against content blocking, but Facebook and Twitter are not. Probably the safest provider for kids on the planet right now.