Page 3 of 5 <12345>
Topic Options
#97029 - 02/28/15 02:17 PM Re: FCC: Adversarial Force to Open Internet [Re: antikarmatomic]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 6847
Loc: Virginia
 Originally Posted By: AK
The whole GNU concept - "Free as in freedom not free as in beer"

Unfortunately I don't see it becoming "freer" in either sense of the world.


What the fuck is freedom?

It's not 'Free' if it's criminalized.
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#97034 - 02/28/15 03:32 PM Re: FCC: Adversarial Force to Open Internet [Re: SIN3]
antikarmatomic Offline
BANNED
stalker


Registered: 09/22/13
Posts: 3208
Loc: El Mundo
 Quote:
What the fuck is freedom?


just another word for nothing left to lose. :|


*sorry I got no second line, except in writing a second line explaining why I have no second line. Can we let it slide?
_________________________
Angelic harlequins and sinister clowns.

Top
#99334 - 05/04/15 02:48 PM Re: FCC: Adversarial Force to Open Internet [Re: SIN3]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 6847
Loc: Virginia
Rand Paul moves to block Net Neutrality Rules

 Quote:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Senator Rand Paul, a Republican presidential hopeful, on Wednesday introduced a resolution to block new regulations on Internet service providers, saying they would "wrap the Internet in red tape."

""The Internet has successfully flourished without the heavy hand of government interference," Paul said in a statement. "Stated simply, I do not want to see the government regulating the Internet."



You and me both Buddy. It's inevitable.

 Quote:
Paul's resolution is almost certain to face a veto from President Barack Obama. Republican leaders of key technology committees have been trying to negotiate with Democrats to write a new law to counter the FCC's rules.


The June Launch could certainly be delayed by more red tape.

Meanwhile... In other news.
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#103101 - 09/29/15 01:33 PM Re: FCC: Adversarial Force to Open Internet [Re: SIN3]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 6847
Loc: Virginia
Social Justice in the UN: Internet Sensorship

Anyone willing place bets? Time-line?

UN: Radical Solution?

 Quote:
“The respect for and security of girls and women must at all times be front and center,” the report reads


So what, all a girl's gotta do is blow the Internet Rape Whistle? Poof, then an agency comes rushing in to get the bad guy?

Is it any wonder why North Korea gives the U.N. the proverbial FUCK YOU!?

UN: The Path to Hell Paved with Good Intentions

Maybe. I don't know how serious this report will be taken, or if anything tangible will come of it but it sure is weird.
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#103107 - 09/29/15 06:03 PM Re: FCC: Adversarial Force to Open Internet [Re: SIN3]
Czereda Online
senior member


Registered: 03/14/11
Posts: 1847
Loc: Poland
I don't think that the United Nations is that important politically. When it comes to the internet censorship, I remember there was some other resolution/report last year that was discussed in some media, at least in Poland. Not much attention was devoted to it so I don't even remember what it was all about. Nevertheless, nothing happened then.

Besides, I think that free internet is a myth, just like the privacy online. The whole internet is already monitored by the governments, insulting someone online can cause legal troubles at least in my country and, at least, theoretically. There were some cases where people were sued for stepping over the line. Moreover, the networks are moderated. Even on shitty Facebook it's enough that some butthurt douche reports you and out you go.

As for that UN report, it's just lame. No further comment is necessary. It reminds me of some stupid EU feminists who wanted to ban pornography altogether because it "objectifies" women. Those liberal and politically correct idiots are now a greater danger to the joke of democracy than the most hard-core Christian zealots.
_________________________
Anna Czereda
O9A Meme Cat

Top
#103113 - 09/30/15 10:24 AM Re: FCC: Adversarial Force to Open Internet [Re: Czereda]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 6847
Loc: Virginia
 Originally Posted By: CZ
, I think that free internet is a myth, just like the privacy online. The whole internet is already monitored by the governments, insulting someone online can cause legal troubles at least in my country and, at least, theoretically.


No doubt. I think Freedom overall is a Myth. You're only 'Free' provided you are privileged with Rights, at least that appears to be the sentiment I so often see. Believing you're entitled to Internet comes to mind.

The Sarkeesian Effect is just one such visible case.

Check out her UN address:

Anita Sarkeesian UN Speech


It's like the meme of Margaret Atwood

As if Women really want to regress to being treated like children.
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#103114 - 09/30/15 02:14 PM Re: FCC: Adversarial Force to Open Internet [Re: SIN3]
JamesSTL Offline
member


Registered: 11/29/13
Posts: 312
Loc: St. Louis
 Originally Posted By: SIN3
As if Women really want to regress to being treated like children.


You're over-generalizing. I'm sure there are lots of women out there who wouldn't mind returning to a simpler time, where marriage was essentially the sale of property from father to husband.

It's such a shame that the "obey" part of a woman's vows has been so often omitted in today's marriage ceremonies.


Top
#103117 - 09/30/15 04:24 PM Re: FCC: Adversarial Force to Open Internet [Re: SIN3]
Czereda Online
senior member


Registered: 03/14/11
Posts: 1847
Loc: Poland
 Quote:
As if Women really want to regress to being treated like children.


The survivor of cyber violence? Seriously? Playing a victim card is the most pathetic kind of attention whoring but still one can capitalize on it. Feminism is a joke nowadays.

That aside, I think it would be great if everyone had some sort of personal standards and a personal etiquette while being online. I mean here nothing artificial or oppressive but we usually follow social etiquette during face to face interactions. The thing is that some behaviors exhibited online are simply disgusting and I don't mean here that they are indecent or outrageous but just... you know it's as if you invited a pig to your apartment and it would have diarrhea all over your carpet. In my country recently, some kid has committed suicide because he was harassed by his school friends. Even after his death he was shit-talked all over Facebook and not only by teenagers but also by some random adults. I don't even regard it as "wicked" but tasteless and primitive.

Plus, there come the mountains of stupidity. I'm all in favor of censorship, but not done by the governments but by the owners of individual websites. If pigs and retards flood some network and they can't moderate themselves, then the frequent use of the ban hammer would sort out the problem. Unfortunately, most of such network owners value quantity over quality so they tolerate idiots. Moreover, they are self-righteous so it's the politically-incorrect ones that usually have troubles, not the semi-literate retards. Such behavior drives more intelligent users away because who would like to dine in a toilet?

Let's take for example Facebook. I deleted most of the groups I belonged to because I was tired of seeing stupid shit in my newsfeed and getting email alerts whenever some dumbfuck posted something which was totally stupid, yet for some reason he considered it extremely important.

Anyway, I don't think that this report would change anything as it is mainly an appeal to the site owners to moderate their networks more tightly. I agree it's sanctimonious and stupid, however it's nothing new. I don't know how it is in the US but in Poland shit-talking someone online is illegal, at least theoretically. It's not that the government censors websites but if you launch a smear campaign against someone, that person or a company or an institution can request your IP address from the website administrator and the admin has a legal duty to reveal the IP address. Then, the person you insulted can go to the police, find out your data and then sue you. Of course, it becomes much harder when the proverbial "bully" uses proxy and altogether, it's more trouble then it's worth, especially that our Polish courts are shitty.
_________________________
Anna Czereda
O9A Meme Cat

Top
#103121 - 10/01/15 12:30 AM Re: FCC: Adversarial Force to Open Internet [Re: SIN3]
antikarmatomic Offline
BANNED
stalker


Registered: 09/22/13
Posts: 3208
Loc: El Mundo
short and sweet (for once)

 Originally Posted By: S3
I think Freedom overall is a Myth. You're only 'Free' provided you are privileged with Rights, at least that appears to be the sentiment I so often see. Believing you're entitled to Internet comes to mind.


I have absolutely no idea what you're saying here, if anything at all.

You are as free as your capabilities afford. Legislation never stopped anything; and in no other sphere of influence is this more glaringly apparent than in cyberspace - hence, why I never pay for internet in airports or hotels. Nor will whatever I do while connected ever come back to me.

One simple rule: "Don't fuck it up"
_________________________
Angelic harlequins and sinister clowns.

Top
#103127 - 10/01/15 11:12 AM Re: FCC: Adversarial Force to Open Internet [Re: JamesSTL]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 6847
Loc: Virginia
I don't disagree, in ideal perhaps. They have no real point of reference having not experienced being a "kept woman". No idea what its like having to attain funds from her husband like an allowance, the ability to do as she pleases as a privilege and still make it home in time to have his dinner on the table because its her duty.

There's also plenty of women still alive that consider a modern way of life, an absurd desire for a woman. Older family members upon hearing I'm seeing someone automatically assume that I should just quit working for capital because well shit, I landed me a man to take care of my needs. If he's not throwing money at me then he's not a real man at all. It's weird to me. Typically the same women that lament when their husbands stake claim to the money in the bank, and threaten to leave their ass flat if they misbehave.

 Originally Posted By: Czereda
That aside, I think it would be great if everyone had some sort of personal standards and a personal etiquette while being online.


We do, that's the issue here. Most want a universal standard of 'correct' speech, 'correct' behavior and the world will be far more harmonious. 'America' isn't just a place where we live, it's very much an ideal as well. Citizens are supposedly granted security of Liberty & Freedom by the Living Documents that afford these privileges.

In the case of gang-stalking, harassment and cyber-abuse, it seeks to take personal responsibility out of the hands of the user and place it in the hands of the government. These two women that speak (seemingly impassioned) about being survivors, to me it means that they read every word of comment, critique, criticism and took it to heart. It hurt their feelings, it gave them cause to either feel genuine fear or depression (as in Zoe's case) (starts at about the 1:20 mark) and like children, they want a parental role to police the behavior of the general public. "Stop saying mean things!" "Stop subscribing!" "Stop replying to comments!"

What is "Harassment" in this environment? Is it when you subscribe to a users many platforms? Comment on their content? Reply in exchanges between parties? Use Politically Incorrect speech when you do?


Sarkeesian and Quinnn are critical of the tools available to them. It's not enough to close comments on their videos, moderate comments on blogs, block users or simply ignore critiques. What will be enough?

When the gen-pop feels as if these women are presenting a skewed version of events or the issues, they will certainly speak out (for better or worse). Both have been called Bullies. Both have been referred to as being part of a Feminist gang, and both come under fire for attempting to force changes onto others.

 Originally Posted By: AK
have absolutely no idea what you're saying here, if anything at all.


Capabilities afforded in relation to what? It depends on how the individual would define Freedom, which is why I cited an example of entitlement sentiment. In the case of this panel, many women believe its their innate Right to be FREE of harassment, and have access to the Internet. The broadband rep covered this a fair bit before/after Sarkeesian/Quinn's address.

As far as they are concerned, other people are fucking up their Freedom.
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#103130 - 10/01/15 03:16 PM Re: FCC: Adversarial Force to Open Internet [Re: SIN3]
antikarmatomic Offline
BANNED
stalker


Registered: 09/22/13
Posts: 3208
Loc: El Mundo
 Originally Posted By: AK

I have absolutely no idea what you're saying here, if anything at all.

You are as free as your capabilities afford. Legislation never stopped anything; and in no other sphere of influence is this more glaringly apparent than in cyberspace - hence, why I never pay for internet in airports or hotels. Nor will whatever I do while connected ever come back to me.
 Originally Posted By: SIN3

 Originally Posted By: AK
have absolutely no idea what you're saying here, if anything at all.

Capabilities afforded in relation to what?


*It is often as if we're not even having the same conversation. You do realize this, no?

But to answer your question: in relation to whatever the fuck it is one desires freedom from, to do, or to have. I don't know of any simpler way to explain it. Liberties are taken; not granted.


Edited by antikarmatomic (10/01/15 03:20 PM)
Edit Reason: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FdHq3WfJgs
_________________________
Angelic harlequins and sinister clowns.

Top
#103174 - 10/02/15 01:24 PM Re: FCC: Adversarial Force to Open Internet [Re: antikarmatomic]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 6847
Loc: Virginia
 Quote:
Liberties are taken; not granted.


Then what the fuck are you countering you asshat because that's precisely what I said. Derp.

You sure you're not hitting the pipe?
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#103183 - 10/02/15 10:26 PM Re: FCC: Adversarial Force to Open Internet [Re: SIN3]
antikarmatomic Offline
BANNED
stalker


Registered: 09/22/13
Posts: 3208
Loc: El Mundo
Pardon me, ma'am, I must've hit a nerve. What makes you think I was countering?
_________________________
Angelic harlequins and sinister clowns.

Top
#103191 - 10/03/15 01:47 PM Re: FCC: Adversarial Force to Open Internet [Re: antikarmatomic]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 6847
Loc: Virginia
No, more of a rib-jab.

What is 'Freedom' if not simply an ideal? In the context of my reply to Czereda; plenty would defer to fancy sheets of paper held up on museums to have it both defined and practiced. Even as 'proof' that it's something they are entitled to rather than something taken.

Maybe these gals believe they are taking back freedoms lost by an appeal to authority, or as a way to enforce policy yet to be codified.

It was said that the tools available to them aren't enough to take their Liberties without being bothered by other people. To the tune of Violence Against Women/girls.
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#103193 - 10/03/15 06:48 PM Re: FCC: Adversarial Force to Open Internet [Re: SIN3]
Czereda Online
senior member


Registered: 03/14/11
Posts: 1847
Loc: Poland
 Quote:
These two women that speak (seemingly impassioned) about being survivors, to me it means that they read every word of comment, critique, criticism and took it to heart. It hurt their feelings, it gave them cause to either feel genuine fear or depression...


And to me it means they got off on the whole thing.

In the game of power, the victim card can be very useful and if one is skilled enough, one can play that card successfully. The best method is to exchange the mere victim card for the martyrdom card. I don't know everything about this gaming community vs Sarkeesian conflict, it's possible that she provoked the harassment and partly deserved it but BUT... most important... the reaction was not proportional to the provocation, which means the gaming "community" overreacted and went too far in their criticism and hostility, which next means she didn't deserve what she got, perhaps she deserved a little but not all of that. And finally that means she for the large part "suffered" innocently and that makes her a Martyr for the Cause, in her case Feminism.

The Martyr card is very strong. It often beats the King. Nero learned it the hard way. As I wrote, I don't know all the details of the drama but from what I read online, it seems she nicely capitalized on her cyber martyrdom. She not only gained more popularity, gave more talks, received many awards and raised much more money for her projects than she planned but she also used her "victimization" to convince the considerable part of the general public that women are really bullied online, especially in the "gaming community" and she achieved all of that thanks to her detractors. Honestly, I think she has pwned them.

 Quote:
When the gen-pop feels as if these women are presenting a skewed version of events or the issues, they will certainly speak out (for better or worse). Both have been called Bullies. Both have been referred to as being part of a Feminist gang, and both come under fire for attempting to force changes onto others.


Yeah but that can be easily forgotten due to all this suffering "poor me" endured. Get real. The cyber douchebags made Sarkeesian look like a heroine, at least in the eyes of her supporters/the sheep. I'm sure their number has increased. "The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church."


Edited by Czereda (10/03/15 06:59 PM)
_________________________
Anna Czereda
O9A Meme Cat

Top
Page 3 of 5 <12345>


Moderator:  Woland, TV is God, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.028 seconds of which 0.001 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.