forgot password register

reset password

register

patrick.net

 

#censorship


#housing #investing #politics #random more»
771,023 comments by 11,156 registered users, 5 online now: errc, HEY YOU, Ironworker, NoYes, rpanic01
new post
« prev   censorship

5

Protest against corporate censorship of public dialogue

By Patrick following x   2017 Oct 1, 6:23pm 749 views   73 comments   watch   quote     share  

I'm quite disturbed that a few corporations can collude to silence ideas that they don't like -- even if those ideas are basically Nazi.

I've taken a copy of the censored dailystormer.com page "A Normie's Guide to the Alt-Right" from the Internet Archive and hosted it on my own site, here:

http://patrick.net/content/stormer.html

Style sheets don't quite work, but you can read the text. And that's the important thing. They tried to prevent you from having the ability to read it, but I'm saying that is wrong. You should have the ability to read it even if our corporate overlords say no. Especially if they say no. I encourage all other websites to also host parts or all of dailystormer.com as a protest.

I'm not a Nazi. Technically Jewish (long story). Just a believer that corporations should not be in actual fact dictating what we can and cannot read online.

#censorship

Comments 1 - 40 of 73     Next »     Last »

2 APOCALYPSEFUCK_is_ADORABLE   2017 Oct 9, 1:43pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
If you can't make Julius Streicher blush, you should not be in media or in politics.
3 anonymous   2017 Oct 9, 2:23pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
Thanks for posting, Patrick. Hopefully, people will see just how evil Alt Right is and why Antifa is necessary to battle this metastasizing cancer that keeps resurfacing under different faces in different parts of the world as decades go by.
4 jazz_music   2017 Oct 9, 3:57pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
anonymous says
Hopefully, people will see just how evil Alt Right is

If you're going to gleen that you'll really have to read between the lines because from what I've read they got alternate facts all lined up to answer each and every question.

If the reader is at all impressionable, they got you.

Ever seen Kellyanne Conway's interview on the subject of Trump's humility? Wow! She lies with a serenity and warmth that transcends.
5 joeyjojojunior   2017 Oct 9, 8:18pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
Good for you Patrick. I’m assuming you are against any potential ramifications from the NFL against the kneeling players then, right?
6 Dan8267   2017 Oct 9, 8:31pm   ↑ like (1)   ↑ dislike (1)     quote        
Patrick says
I'm quite disturbed that a few corporations can collude to silence ideas that they don't like


Just remember conservative philosophy. You are not entitled to anything. Not anything. Not even free speech.
7 Patrick   2017 Oct 9, 8:32pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
Everyone has the right to their own political opinions, but that doesn't mean that everyone has the right to abuse their employer's resources to express them.
8 anonymous   2017 Oct 9, 8:35pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
@patrick - there is a difference between censoring info vs making it very easy to access.

Let's imagine in her 20s your wife did a sex tape w 6 guys all with signed consents - all100% legal.

For 20 years they traded your wife's tape via mail order catalog and a subscription only newsletter - thus you didn't mind because the impact was minimal.

Now they wanted to post the video and demanded you host it. Yet you find the tape despicable- seeing those 6 cocks make your wife moan and do unspeakable things - things she would never do with you now.

The question thus is must YOU tolerate all info - no matter how despicable and repugnant you may find it - or may you exercise discretion and pick and choose what info you allow on your site?

Again - the alternative isn't "censorship" they are free to transmit that vile tape by any means they can - and no one can legally block them from working with a partner to disseminate that tape far & wide. At the same time, they cannot force you to host & help them disseminate info which causes you so much pain and embarrassment.
9 errc   2017 Oct 9, 8:50pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
Thanks, Patrick. Never saw that before.

Never knew the Alt-Right were so woke to the nature of Jews in our culture.

The Ultimate Cuck: a Jewboy cucking for the Alt-Right, as they seek to organize and exterminate the Kike Cunt Oppressors!! Just as the Founding Fathers intended
10 Dan8267   2017 Oct 9, 8:57pm   ↑ like (4)   ↑ dislike (4)     quote        
Patrick says
Everyone should have the right to their own political opinions, but that doesn't mean that everyone has the right to abuse their employer's resources to express them.


Without the abuse of employer's resources to express baseless identity politics, PatNet would have no traffic!
11 Patrick   2017 Oct 9, 9:10pm   ↑ like (2)   ↑ dislike (2)     quote        
anonymous says
The question thus is must YOU tolerate all info - no matter how despicable and repugnant you may find it - or may you exercise discretion and pick and choose what info you allow on your site?


I may pick and choose because I don't have any significant market share, sadly.

Now if I had a near monopoly over forums, or was an organized group of megacorporations synchronizing their blocking of DNS records (godaddy), search (google), and hosting (cloudflare) then it would be de-facto censorship if I were to pick and choose who gets heard, based on politics.
12 anonymous   2017 Oct 9, 10:45pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
even if you had a dominant share the question stands - why must you be forced host information you wish never existed?

If you don't like the example of your wife, what about websites dedicated to stalking sandy hook victims so like minded truthers can plan to meet up and share info on where victims live/work to confront them and do some "fact finding" about no tears or cockeyed arms?

Not extreme enough? Let's imagine there was a feasible way to create a device which will sterilize people. Or poison areas to make them uninhabitable to humans. Well meaning People concerned about overpopulation would gladly act upon this if they could.

Either way, Is there ANY point at which the owners of a fast & efficient means of communication are allowed to say gee we have a social responsibility here? Do they need to allow information no matter how much potential harm it can cause?

Remember all these groups have a constitutional protected right to assemble, share ideas etc and no one will ever stop them from meeting, creating their own newsletters or other forms of communication. However why must the have access to communication means that the owners of that communication find antithetical to everything they believe?
13 HEY YOU   2017 Oct 10, 12:20am   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
anonymous says
despicable and repugnant


Patnet,the pinnacle of despicable and repugnant! lol
14 bob2356   2017 Oct 10, 5:54am   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
Patrick says

Now if I had a near monopoly over forums, or was an organized group of megacorporations synchronizing their blocking of DNS records (godaddy), search (google), and hosting (cloudflare) then it would be de-facto censorship if I were to pick and choose who gets heard, based on politics.


Godaddy is the only domain register, google is the only search engine, cloudfire is the only host. I always thought there were more. It's great how you learn new things every day at patnet.

Companies can choose to keep or lose whoever they want as customers. It's really a simple concept.
15 Patrick   2017 Oct 10, 6:56am   ↑ like (1)   ↑ dislike (1)     quote        
Google is a near-monopoly, and the others are not too far behind.

When in actual fact they become monopolies and are telling you what you may not read, will you be concerned? Or not, because after all, they can choose to lose you as a customer ... to nobody?
16 anonymous   2017 Oct 10, 7:06am   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
@patrick I again ask you to answer the question. At what point are you permitted to say "thanks but no thanks" to someone whose ideas you find repugnant?
17 Patrick   2017 Oct 10, 7:13am   ↑ like (1)   ↑ dislike (1)     quote        
I answered the question: when you are nowhere near a monopoly.

To have powerful corporations colluding to suppress content is also wrong.
18 joeyjojojunior   2017 Oct 10, 7:47am   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
Patrick says
Google is a near-monopoly, and the others are not too far behind.


The NFL is also a clear monopoly.
19 Dan8267   2017 Oct 10, 7:49am   ↑ like (1)   ↑ dislike (1)     quote        
Patrick says
To have powerful corporations colluding to suppress content is also wrong.


It's also an inescapable consequence of capitalism. The entire economic system is based on a simple cycle: money --> control of production --> control of revenue streams --> more money --> repeat. This is what's called a positive feedback system. It causes all wealth and power to be concentrated into the hands of a few, purely lucky few. It's a winner take all lottery system.

It does nothing to promote competition, free markets, choice, or productivity. In fact, it works against all of these things.

We need two fundamental reforms in our economy.
1. Georgist taxation of consumption of public and scarce resources.
2. An economic system that ties income to productivity rather than power or capital.

Until those two reforms happen, all these symptoms people complain about will persist.
20 TwoScoopsMcGee   2017 Oct 10, 8:39am   ↑ like (1)   ↑ dislike (1)     quote        
anonymous says
@patrick I again ask you to answer the question. At what point are you permitted to say "thanks but no thanks" to someone whose ideas you find repugnant?


I find it hard to believe you couldn't avoid one video of a chick banging 6 dudes, or Nazis, or anything else on the internet. In addition, there is blocking software for just about everything, such as anything related to Arachnids.

Patrick says
To have powerful corporations colluding to suppress content is also wrong.


Censors are always trying to justify their censorship, be it Harry Potter (2000s), or Atheism (1800s), or Unions (1700-1920s), etc.

Also,censoring something often creates a "Forbidden Fruit" backfire effect where people who would have never looked, go looking for it because it's forbidden. The "Anarchist Cookbook" or even "Necronomicon" effect. And it becomes an "Edgy" thing to be into.

Censorship is mostly about people expressing their Identity : "This is what I and the good groups I'm a member of, are against!" Hence companies like Google and Facebook, which cooperate with Chinese, Pakistani, and other authoritarian regimes with shit human rights records, want to use "No-Platforming" on Nazis to distract from their actual assistance to brutal regimes that result in actual Free Speech or Liberty or Democracy Advocates being imprisoned, tortured, and executed. The virtue signalling on Nazis is a disgusting distraction from their real-life compromises with Tyranny in the name of greed
21 errc   2017 Oct 10, 8:47am   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
Also,censoring something often creates a "Forbidden Fruit" backfire effect where people who would have never looked, go looking for it because it's forbidden.

Censorship is mostly about people expressing their Identity : "This is what I and the good groups I'm a member of, are against!"

———————

Yup just like Cannabis/Hemp Prohibition. The most UnAmerican of all the injustices that the Christian Church has used the USFEDGOV to terrorize the populace, and for what?
22 Goran_K   2017 Oct 10, 9:10am   ↑ like (2)   ↑ dislike (2)     quote        
anonymous says
At the same time, they cannot force you to host & help them disseminate info which causes you so much pain and embarrassment.


The reason this analogy fails is because YouTube/Google/etc have a virtual monopoly on how content is distributed digitally and how many eyes see the content.

You would have to be extremely naive to believe that YouTube/Google do not have the power to push a political agenda with overwhelming reach.
23 errc   2017 Oct 10, 9:20am   ↑ like (1)   ↑ dislike (1)     quote        
Kind of like how Christianity has a monopoly on Religion in this country. Where they occupy so much potentially productive and valuable land, and used forced Socialism to make the rest of us pay their fair share, while they destroy all of its value. All the whole, subverting the most important aspect of American Society by mixing Church with State. Using their politicians to destroy this country while harming its citizens.

Yea, that’s something any true American should be actively fighting back
24 TwoScoopsMcGee   2017 Oct 10, 9:32am   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
errc says
Kind of like how Christianity has a monopoly on Religion in this country.


How about Free Speech, Democracy, etc.? Are those Monopoly Opinions? You're confusing overmighty organizations with ideas/abstract concepts. The POINT of regulating/trustbusting Internet Companies is to ensure Ideas aren't protected from criticism and competition via censorship.

It wasn't long ago that the Mainstream Media "de-platformed" (the new misleading way of saying "Censored") any serious discussion of Drug Legalization. Rarely mentioning the case and when it did, usually giving a boogeyman, strawman version using the nuttiest stoner types. The internet has been amazing.

The bothersome thing with Silicon Valley is that it used to have a Libertarian, Let a 1000 Flowers Bloom mentality. Then the money started rolling in. The Industry's story is basically that of Silk Road and Dread Pirate Roberts. The reason I call myself a Liberal and not a Hardcore Libertarian Ideologue is because Power Corrupts.

There's a big difference between:
"Everybody believes in Taxation in America. Let's break that "monopoly" by allowing some people not to pay tax so Taxation doesn't have a stranglehold."
and
"Standard oil controls 90% of the oil supply, raising and lowering prices at a whim for maximum profit. We need competition to get better quality and quantity."
25 anonymous   2017 Oct 10, 10:08am   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
Patrick- I thought I posted this but maybe not.

Anyway - to carry your answer to the logical extreme of my sterilization hypothetical, is it fair to state your position as:

When an entity is at or near monopoly power it MUST accommodate all ideas, even if those ideas/info are potentially destructive to civilization itself. Is this correct?
26 Goran_K   2017 Oct 10, 10:22am   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
errc says
Using their politicians to destroy this country while harming its citizens.


lol, how exactly?
27 errc   2017 Oct 10, 10:33am   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
"Standard oil controls 90% of the oil supply, raising and lowering prices at a whim for maximum profit. We need competition to get better quality and quantity."

—————

The Christians control 90% of the supply of all land used for ‘religious ‘ purposes that is tax exempt. We need competition to get better use of the land, and put an end to The Church subverting the First Amendment.

Remember, the Church is a corporation.

And we’re all fighting to defend the first amendment, correct? What was the first mention in the first amendment of the Constitution? More important than the freedom of speech, and the freedom of the press?


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
28 bob2356   2017 Oct 10, 10:58am   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
Patrick says
Google is a near-monopoly, and the others are not too far behind.

When in actual fact they become monopolies and are telling you what you may not read, will you be concerned? Or not, because after all, they can choose to lose you as a customer ... to nobody?


Damn it sure would be nice looking forest if all these fucking trees weren't in the way.

What are google and youtube a monopoly of? No one needs to use google or youtube. They want to use them, but anyone can walk away at any time. If someone has such a compelling message there are other ways to get it out. People got out their message for many millennium before google and youtube existed. It's not as convenient is all. You are talking about a monopoly on being convenient not a monopoly on the message.
29 jazz_music   2017 Oct 10, 11:30am   ↑ like (1)   ↑ dislike (1)     quote        
errc says
Yup just like Cannabis/Hemp Prohibition. The most UnAmerican of all the injustices that the Christian Church has used the USFEDGOV to terrorize the populace, and for what?

Initially to satisfy women suffrage's activists ambitions to legislate against sinfulness. There was much publicity about men getting high, brutalizing and murdering the women and children at home. Before prohibition, many of today's biggest pharma companies were making mega-bank selling mail order opioids to the rural masses.

Since the early days Nixon conceived the drug war ploy to suppress the political gains made by blacks and the hippies who spread anti-war culture and spoiled the capitalist's war gravy train. Also with young people dropping out of the rat race to listen to music, get high, and fuck made a real dent in the productivity of society.

Around 1970, the establishment decided that emphasis on cultural renaissance was intolerable. I remember reading about summits where all these issues were discussed and decided.

Old middle class whites, who all vote, were such suckers for the legislations against sin and these phony-assed law-and-order candidates that they established a police state and made a lucrative racket out of the pursuit of justice and a supposedly high moral code.
30 anonymous   2017 Oct 10, 4:00pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
Bob said "you are talking about a monopoly on being convenient not a monopoly on the message.

Precisely degenerate groups have communicated via newsletters and other very low-tech means for decades or longer. According to Wikipedia, The North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) is still around in some way shape or form but I very much appreciate that for mankind's sake that we have been able to frustrate their intent to get their message out.
31 Patrick   2017 Oct 10, 7:19pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
anonymous says
Anyway - to carry your answer to the logical extreme of my sterilization hypothetical, is it fair to state your position as:

When an entity is at or near monopoly power it MUST accommodate all ideas, even if those ideas/info are potentially destructive to civilization itself. Is this correct?


Ideally, there would be no near-monopolies in the media.

But if there are, they should be bound to present all non-violent sides without political discrimination. Remember the "equal time" doctrine?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule
32 anonymous   2017 Oct 10, 8:08pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
Ok - so per the all ideas deserve equal time rule - the Paul Erlich contemporaries who openly advocate for someone to spike our water supply with "temporary sterilants" to deprive anyone from having children deserve as much a voice as anyone else. Correct?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb
BTW - I do sincerely appreciate the open debate as I ask you to answer the extremes of your black & White position - even if it turns out you and I end up agreeing to disagree.
33 Patrick   2017 Oct 10, 8:10pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
anonymous says
Ok - so per the all ideas deserve equal time rule - the Paul Erlich contemporaries who openly advocate for someone to spike our water supply with "temporary sterilants" to deprive anyone from having children deserve as much a voice as anyone else. Correct?


All nonviolent ideas deserve at least a hearing, so sure, even Paul Erlich should be heard.
34 errc   2017 Oct 10, 8:14pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
Patrick says
anonymous says
Ok - so per the all ideas deserve equal time rule - the Paul Erlich contemporaries who openly advocate for someone to spike our water supply with "temporary sterilants" to deprive anyone from having children deserve as much a voice as anyone else. Correct?


All nonviolent ideas deserve at least a hearing, so sure, even Paul Erlich should be heard.


You don’t think that spiking the water supply with sterilants constitutes violence? It certainly causes harm and deprived people of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness
35 Patrick   2017 Oct 10, 8:17pm   ↑ like (1)   ↑ dislike (1)     quote        
I suppose it's a kind of poisoning, which is somewhat like violence. But if we assume the effect is temporary and harmless, maybe not.

Anyway, my principle is that nonviolent ideas do not deserve censorship.
36 joeyjojojunior   2017 Oct 11, 6:05am   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
Patrick says
Anyway, my principle is that nonviolent ideas do not deserve censorship.


I wish Trump agreed with you.
37 Patrick   2017 Oct 11, 7:03am   ↑ like (1)   ↑ dislike (1)     quote        
What do you mean? Trump has not tried to censor anything.
38 joeyjojojunior   2017 Oct 11, 7:19am   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
Patrick says
What do you mean? Trump has not tried to censor anything.


NFL players?

Trump is strongly advocating for a monopoly to siilence non-violent free speech.
39 mell   2017 Oct 11, 7:30am   ↑ like (3)   ↑ dislike (3)     quote        
joeyjojojunior says


NFL players?

Trump is strongly advocating for a monopoly to siilence non-violent free speech.


Enough with this bs comparison. You can't go work for Monsanto and run a blog against Round-Up. They have all the free speech they want on the internet as all providers would host their protest opinion. This is about freedom of information, not about freedom to shit on your employer. Comparing this to website providers (who are not employers of their clients) censoring paying clients to prevent the dissemination of their opinion/information is asinine. Of course you could make the argument that those big providers have the right to refuse service to anyone, BUT then you have to be consequent and that reasoning then would also mean people running restaurants (or any other business) should be able to choose their clients by race, opinions, gender, sex. In any case I think Trump could/should/may have stayed out of this as it's not really that important and the NFL in itself is a racket. But he is not censoring anybody.
40 joeyjojojunior   2017 Oct 11, 7:40am   ↑ like (1)   ↑ dislike (1)     quote        
mell says
Enough with this bs comparison. You can't go work for Monsanto and run a blog against Round-Up


Sure.. But Patrick, McGee, et. al can't have it both ways either.

Either you want free speech that corporations can't stop or you don't. Trumpkins want free speech that agrees with them uncensored but free speech that counters their view is fine to censor.

Hypocrisy at its finest. A Trump hallmark.

Comments 1 - 40 of 73     Next »     Last »

users   about   suggestions   source code   contact  
topics   best comments   comment jail  
10 reasons it's a terrible time to buy  
8 groups who lie about the housing market  
37 bogus arguments about housing  
get a free bumper sticker:

top   bottom   home