Julian Assange Being Turned over to UK????

nohero said:

nan said:
In the video they recommend a book about the origins of the internet as a military surveillance project. 
Surveillance Valley: The Secret Military History of the Internet  by Yasha Levine
https://www.amazon.com/Surveillance-Valley-Military-History-Internet/dp/1610398025/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8

In this fascinating book, investigative reporter Yasha Levine uncovers the secret origins of the internet, tracing it back to a Pentagon counterinsurgency surveillance project.

A visionary intelligence officer, William Godel, realized that the key to winning the war in Vietnam was not outgunning the enemy, but using new information technology to understand their motives and anticipate their movements. This idea--using computers to spy on people and groups perceived as a threat, both at home and abroad--drove ARPA to develop the internet in the 1960s, and continues to be at the heart of the modern internet we all know and use today

The fact that beginning of the internet was funded through the Defense Department is well known.  The history of science and technical research in that era has lots of examples of academic research getting funding by pitching it to Defense; it's where the money was.  Another example, if you read the history of the LIGO gravitational wave detector that confirmed some of Einstein's work a couple of years ago, that had a lot of Defense funding as well.
I was unaware that the internet was created so that people would use it and then the government could spy on it.  That's interesting.  I guess Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone so people would use it, and one day the NSA could log their phone calls.

 So the defense department is as neutral and unknowing as Alexander Graham Bell about their invention?  Perhaps you should read the book first before declaring that since, from what I've read, the author presents evidence that surveillance was the intent from the get go.

nan said:

What I would prefer is to hear from you why you think these 800 pages were removed. What is your official stand on that, dave23?

They were for policy violations made explicit by Facebook. And I'm sure Facebook made some mistakes, too. They removed some more yesterday. So I guess my official stance is that they are allowed to enforce their own policies. I also support their policies that posters may not deliberately hide their identities in an effort to willfully mislead readers. 

It's not that radical.

dave23 said:

nan said:

What I would prefer is to hear from you why you think these 800 pages were removed. What is your official stand on that, dave23?

They were for policy violations made explicit by Facebook. And I'm sure Facebook made some mistakes, too. They removed some more yesterday. So I guess my official stance is that they are allowed to enforce their own policies. I also support their policies that posters may not deliberately hide their identities in an effort to willfully mislead readers. 
It's not that radical.

 But, as I demonstrated in the article and video, they hired people with an agenda to silence certain kinds of pages, especially anti-war and cop videos.  Does this not bother you at all? You are fine with neocons censoring your social media?  I'm not.

Have you ever noticed how bitter and angry you are?   

nan said:

 But, as I demonstrated in the article and video, they hired people with an agenda to silence certain kinds of pages, especially anti-war and cop videos.  Does this not bother you at all? You are fine with neocons censoring your social media?  I'm not.

They removed pages like The Free Thought Project, right? No, I'm not concerned that Facebook is a cabal of neocons looking to remove all traces liberal thought from its site. And when I'm on Facebook I'm quite aware that they are a multi-billion dollar company looking to maximize their profits, not provide me with a forum for free expression under the rules of the Constitution. 

dave23 said:

nan said:

 But, as I demonstrated in the article and video, they hired people with an agenda to silence certain kinds of pages, especially anti-war and cop videos.  Does this not bother you at all? You are fine with neocons censoring your social media?  I'm not.

They removed pages like The Free Thought Project, right? No, I'm not concerned that Facebook is a cabal of neocons looking to remove all traces liberal thought from its site. And when I'm on Facebook I'm quite aware that they are a multi-billion dollar company looking to maximize their profits, not provide me with a forum for free expression under the rules of the Constitution. 

 OK, maybe time to reread 1984 and get back to me in the morning.

nan said:

dave23 said:

nan said:

 But, as I demonstrated in the article and video, they hired people with an agenda to silence certain kinds of pages, especially anti-war and cop videos.  Does this not bother you at all? You are fine with neocons censoring your social media?  I'm not.

They removed pages like The Free Thought Project, right? No, I'm not concerned that Facebook is a cabal of neocons looking to remove all traces liberal thought from its site. And when I'm on Facebook I'm quite aware that they are a multi-billion dollar company looking to maximize their profits, not provide me with a forum for free expression under the rules of the Constitution. 

 OK, maybe time to reread 1984 and get back to me in the morning.

Yes, you ought to.

dave23 said:

nan said:

dave23 said:

nan said:

 But, as I demonstrated in the article and video, they hired people with an agenda to silence certain kinds of pages, especially anti-war and cop videos.  Does this not bother you at all? You are fine with neocons censoring your social media?  I'm not.

They removed pages like The Free Thought Project, right? No, I'm not concerned that Facebook is a cabal of neocons looking to remove all traces liberal thought from its site. And when I'm on Facebook I'm quite aware that they are a multi-billion dollar company looking to maximize their profits, not provide me with a forum for free expression under the rules of the Constitution. 

 OK, maybe time to reread 1984 and get back to me in the morning.

Yes, you ought to.

 I have recently, and that's why I'm wondering why you are fine with shutting down the public square and letting the neocons be the dominate voice.  

nan said:

I have recently, and that's why I'm wondering why you are fine with shutting down the public square and letting the neocons be the dominate voice.  

 Were that the case, I would be worried. I'm afraid your takeaway from 1984 was off-base.

nan said:

dave23 said:

nan said:

 But, as I demonstrated in the article and video, they hired people with an agenda to silence certain kinds of pages, especially anti-war and cop videos.  Does this not bother you at all? You are fine with neocons censoring your social media?  I'm not.

They removed pages like The Free Thought Project, right? No, I'm not concerned that Facebook is a cabal of neocons looking to remove all traces liberal thought from its site. And when I'm on Facebook I'm quite aware that they are a multi-billion dollar company looking to maximize their profits, not provide me with a forum for free expression under the rules of the Constitution. 

 OK, maybe time to reread 1984 and get back to me in the morning.

 I’m trying remember the part in the book where they shut down one groups Facebook page, but allowed them to leave their website up for anyone to read.

https://thefreethoughtproject.com/

dave23 said:

nan said:

I have recently, and that's why I'm wondering why you are fine with shutting down the public square and letting the neocons be the dominate voice.  

 Were that the case, I would be worried. I'm afraid your takeaway from 1984 was off-base.

 No, your complacency on this is way off-base.  Remember, they said this was just the beginning.

ridski said:

nan said:

dave23 said:

nan said:

 But, as I demonstrated in the article and video, they hired people with an agenda to silence certain kinds of pages, especially anti-war and cop videos.  Does this not bother you at all? You are fine with neocons censoring your social media?  I'm not.

They removed pages like The Free Thought Project, right? No, I'm not concerned that Facebook is a cabal of neocons looking to remove all traces liberal thought from its site. And when I'm on Facebook I'm quite aware that they are a multi-billion dollar company looking to maximize their profits, not provide me with a forum for free expression under the rules of the Constitution. 

 OK, maybe time to reread 1984 and get back to me in the morning.

 I’m trying remember the part in the book where they shut down one groups Facebook page, but allowed them to leave their website up for anyone to read.
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/

Right, so since the internet was not invented when 1984 was written it can't apply today.  Thanks for insight. 

How Julian Assange saved Edward Snowden's life and how the mass media distorts coverage.

Who cares.   I hope Assange rots to death in the Embassy.

Yeah, you and the other neocons.  Here's more on Wikileaks achievements.  Top ten.  

Right, I'm a neocon.

sbenois said:
Right, I'm a neocon.

 Yup.  

Whatever you say Nan.  

boy, it's tough catching up on this thread.

One annoyance I had while plowing through pages of posts was paul's constant reference to Facebook as "the public square", as if it was now writ in stone.

I'm pretty sure that one line in a decision does not automatically make something so. And that doesn't even touch on the question of whether a "public square" can be a profit-driven enterprise. Kind of contradictory, don't you think? Suppose that instead of an internet presence, Facebook was simply a collection of actual, physical spaces that resembled "town squares", where people were invited to come to to share their views. Facebook would, as a private entity, have the right to prevent anyone they wanted from entering the square. How is that a public square, and how is that different from the real Facebook?

drummerboy said:

And that doesn't even touch on the question of whether a "public square" can be a profit-driven enterprise. Kind of contradictory, don't you think? 

 You’re so smart, I keep expecting you’d know better than to ask uninformed rhetorical questions.

DaveSchmidt said:

drummerboy said:

And that doesn't even touch on the question of whether a "public square" can be a profit-driven enterprise. Kind of contradictory, don't you think? 

 You’re so smart, I keep expecting you’d know better than to ask uninformed rhetorical questions.

That's almost a compliment.

I think.

nan said:

ridski said:

nan said:

dave23 said:

nan said:

 But, as I demonstrated in the article and video, they hired people with an agenda to silence certain kinds of pages, especially anti-war and cop videos.  Does this not bother you at all? You are fine with neocons censoring your social media?  I'm not.

They removed pages like The Free Thought Project, right? No, I'm not concerned that Facebook is a cabal of neocons looking to remove all traces liberal thought from its site. And when I'm on Facebook I'm quite aware that they are a multi-billion dollar company looking to maximize their profits, not provide me with a forum for free expression under the rules of the Constitution. 

 OK, maybe time to reread 1984 and get back to me in the morning.

 I’m trying remember the part in the book where they shut down one groups Facebook page, but allowed them to leave their website up for anyone to read.
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/

Right, so since the internet was not invented when 1984 was written it can't apply today.  Thanks for insight. 

 My point being that the actual sites these organizations have, from Alex Jones to Jimmy Dore, still exist. The channels they created for themselves and pay for are still open. Their right to free speech has not actually been infringed. The press they own still runs. Therefore, in this case, 1984 is a poor analogy. This is more like Brave New World where the Gammas are told they have to Google soma dispensaries. Or Fahrenheit 451, where all the books burned are still available on kindle.

As they said, they are just getting started. You all thought it would end with Alex Jones. It won't even end with Jimmy Dore.

nan said:
As they said, they are just getting started. You all thought it would end with Alex Jones. It won't even end with Jimmy Dore.

 If Facebook shut down my pages, I'd probably just move on with my life.

ridski said:

nan said:
As they said, they are just getting started. You all thought it would end with Alex Jones. It won't even end with Jimmy Dore.

 If Facebook shut down my pages, I'd probably just move on with my life.

 So, are you saying that the people at say, Venezuela Analysis, veteran journalists, should just shrug and move on?  Why worry if the neocons get the only say, it's only war anyway, and it's good for business?  Is that the line of thinking? These people just can't deal with change?  Someone moved their cheese and they need to adapt?

nan said:

ridski said:

nan said:
As they said, they are just getting started. You all thought it would end with Alex Jones. It won't even end with Jimmy Dore.

 If Facebook shut down my pages, I'd probably just move on with my life.

 So, are you saying that the people at say, Venezuela Analysis, veteran journalists, should just shrug and move on?  Why worry if the neocons get the only say, it's only war anyway, and it's good for business?  Is that the line of thinking? These people just can't deal with change?  Someone moved their cheese and they need to adapt?

 Facebook is not their website. This is: https://venezuelanalysis.com/

ridski said:

nan said:

ridski said:

nan said:
As they said, they are just getting started. You all thought it would end with Alex Jones. It won't even end with Jimmy Dore.

 If Facebook shut down my pages, I'd probably just move on with my life.

 So, are you saying that the people at say, Venezuela Analysis, veteran journalists, should just shrug and move on?  Why worry if the neocons get the only say, it's only war anyway, and it's good for business?  Is that the line of thinking? These people just can't deal with change?  Someone moved their cheese and they need to adapt?

 Facebook is not their website. This is: https://venezuelanalysis.com/

 It goes beyond Facebook.  Google changed it's algorithm so it is more difficult to find left wing views.  Twitter shuts people down also.  Several independent media platforms have experienced sharp drops in views because of this. They don't turn up in searches as they used to.  Some of these platforms will not survive.   

No one outside Google (and very few inside) knows Google's search algorithms.   

dave said:
No one outside Google (and very few inside) knows Google's search algorithms.   

 Chris Hedges and several others have spoken about this.  The search has changed and they don't come up in results the way the used to.  Sites like Counterpunch and Truthdig have significantly reduced views.  

nan said:

dave said:
No one outside Google (and very few inside) knows Google's search algorithms.   

 Chris Hedges and several others have spoken about this.  The search has changed and they don't come up in results the way the used to.  Sites like Counterpunch and Truthdig have significantly reduced views.  

 And yet, not too long ago when the issue was raised that Google's practices should be examined, you cried "censorship!".