No.3775
Each day we find ourselves creeping towards the corporate dystopia we fear.
https://www.itnews.com.au/news/telstra-and-vodafone-temporarily-block-websites-after-christchurch-attack-522232What gets me is that terrorism in the past was fine, but suddenly this isn't. Arabs killing Arabs? 9/11? Arabs killing Europeans? Arabs killing Jews? All totally fine.
Australian killing Arabs? HOLD THE FUCKING PHONE SHUT IT DOWN. SHUT IT ALL DOWN NO TIME TO DISCUSS.
“We understand this may inconvenience some legitimate users of these sites, but these are extreme circumstances and we feel this is the right thing to do.”
A lot of people use these sites as support groups, LGBTQ groups for example, it's a safe place for them. But here we go, let's not understand what this is and just ban it because we are corporate and fuck you.
"The right thing to do" is to ignore fuckers like this, but peoples self righteous indignation won't let them, and he fucking wins.
Good job corpo dipsoykafs. You show we live in a boring as fuck dystopia.
No.3776
>>3775This is exactly the outcome that the attacker wanted too. The irony is that he published his intent and goals, predicted this outcome and the system still did exactly that, like clockwork. The system is only capable of these sort of reactions. bomb a few military bases, maybe a few villages over in the middle east, you have a few hundred civilians who probably got killed as "acceptable collateral" and everyone just reads it and moves on to the next article. That's a "warzone" it's completely different than some dude offing 49 votes the corrupt politicians imported for themselves.
Everyone sleeps through it. It's not real move on nothing to see here.
The system has failed, it's been broken for a while, it's time to reset.
No.3777
It's illegal in many European states to distribute jihadist propaganda. Try sometimes interacting outside your neonazi hugbox.
No.3778
>>3777Do you see them banning websites over it without government intervention?
No, it's ok to ban this because we agree with the ban?
You can't have it both ways, they will come for other stuff. You are the exact reaction this dipsoykaf wanted, and your giving him what he wanted hook, line and sinker.
I'm not a Neo Nazi, I was bashing their heads in well before you where probably born, I remember what they are like, their pure hate and unbridled fear of people diffrent.
I have had family live under real tyranny, governments that felt they had the right to police your thoughts in the name of their dogma, this is the slow road to that in the name of corporate facism.
You people are the reason the word NAZI lost all its meaning.
No.3779
>>3775>Australian killing Arabs? HOLD THE FUCKING PHONE SHUT IT DOWN.To be fair there were probably a lot of people in the shadows who have always wanted to kick these sites off the net and pounced on the opportunity. It's doubtful how many people genuinely think this is going to help somehow.
>>3776>This is exactly the outcome that the attacker wanted too.Yes, there must be a lot of regulars on these sites who now feel more solidarity with the shooter than the governments and institutions currently soykafting on them for no reason.
No.3780
>Go to a cyberpunk forum
>People call other people Nazis for disagreeing with corporate sponsored censorship
No.3781
>>3779That's what it probably was, people in the corporate structure waiting for a reason to shut the access down.
I doubt this was if anything a convenient excuse and I doubt it will be as temporary as claimed.
No.3782
>WTF DUDE WHY CANT I INCITE GENOCIDE FREEEZE PEACH
No.3784
>>3777lol I bet they're super strict about it too
No.3785
>>3780bellingcat's target market I guess
No.3786
>>3782Nobody here is inciting genocide. I have his manifesto and perhaps that incites genocide, but so does Mein Kampf, and you can buy that on Amazon.
I did not expect such a strong response from ISPs. Up till this point everyone has been pretty chill about things. It took years for Pirate Bay to get blocked. I don't recall 4chan ever being blocked before. Then someone loosely associated with the site does something bad, and within days it's blocked. It's an unexpected and disturbing change.
No.3787
>>3786Agreed, it's disturbing.
They all did it without prompting, it's never been done before.
No.3788
Stuff like this is why I'll always hate corporations wanting to shut some things down for money and other stuff.
>I really don't like this timeline atm.
>I'll forever hate censorship of any kind.
No.3789
>>3786I also hate when that happens too. One person in a group does one thing really bad, everyone else gets yelled at.
No.3790
>>3789It's called guilt by association, and it's a big thing these days. Dangerous because it encourages the out-group mentality. People become reluctant to associate with anyone who could have dangerous ideas, because that one person could get in trouble, and then suddenly you're also in trouble.
As a result, people develop a strategy of refusing to associate with anyone who poses any challenging views against society. People with these challenging views are marginalised from society and lose their power. People who buy into the group-think prosper and enact laws suppressing freedom in the name of stability.
No.3791
wake up
>people still trying to cling into ideas of rights and a good world
drink soykfefe
>people still trying to cling into ideas of rights and a good world
go to corporate job
>people still trying to cling into ideas of rights and a good world
the corporation is made of sheep workers and sheep shepherds who systematically created a power that either killed or brought under control every single wolf
>people still trying to cling into ideas of rights and a good world
they lack the insight to see the lovecraftian nightmare we're dreaming
>people still trying to cling into ideas of rights and a good world
go back to temporary residence
>people still trying to cling into ideas of rights and a good world
chill to the feels of the moon
>people still trying to cling into ideas of rights and a good world
sleep a sleepless dream
No.3792
>>3790You got a pretty good point. Groupthink is kind of scary now that I think about it.
>I type this as I'm really tired. No.3794
They are not getting called Nazi for disliking censorship, but for their lies about nobody caring about Arabs killing Europeans when after each Muslim terror attack there was mass repression in Europe, they tightened their censorship, established the state of exception and would have even made encryption illegal if they could. They are selectively ignoring reality to draw a picture that fits the usual neo-nazi narrative. You are falling for their tricks.
No.3796
>>3794Neo-nazis have all kinds of strange beliefs. I prefer not to get tied up in the never-ending political debate. My main concern is living in an environment where all ideas may be openly discussed.
I don't think you can censor the internet. That's not my concern. My concern is the consequences of what will happen from misguided attempts to do so. Every attempt to crack down on minority groups on the internet has caused splinter groups which were able to thrive in their own echo-chambers, but now they can claim persecution.
Members of these communities keep those ideas on the inside and only discuss them in their echo-chambers. The amount of delusion that builds up as a result is astounding. Eventually some poor idiot feels he's been given some meaning in his life, and an enemy to fight.
Maintaining free speech is difficult but, perhaps ironically, I think it is the path to stability.
No.3799
>>3794There's a really easy way to stop Arabs from murdering Europeans on a weekly basis that doesn't require online cennsorship. Also, don't pretend that you care about censorship when you'll go along with it as long as it's a Private Company(TM) doing it and not the state.
No.3800
>>3796I don't think that free speech is that important in all honesty. The echo-chambers will never be stopped, and I don't see them as being as negative as you seem to think.
The important thing is that smart people will always be able to avoid censorship and dumb people will always get arrested by it. More censorship simply means that more people who would commit dumb acts will be caught by the censorship. Only smart people will be able to avoid it fully.
No.3801
>>3799Try reading what's actually written down and not what you would like to see.
No.3802
>>3801I'm sure posting that made you feel very smart, corporation enabler.
No.3820
>>3778I'm sure you've bashed many heads in timothy
post physique
No.3828
>>3784They actually are. A researcher in the UK had his house raided by an anti-terrorist squad for lurking on pro-ISIS websites.
No.3829
>>3828That doesn't sound really good.
No.3835
>>3779>Yes, there must be a lot of regulars on these sites who now feel more solidarity with the shooter than the governments and institutions currently soykafting on them for no reason.I wouldn't say I agree with him 100% but his actions showed a certain understanding of how certain actions cause a ripple effect that can be felt worldwide. He created his ripple and now we are seeing the system take steps based on that ripple.
Although I don't like his methods his ability to affect causality is something I'm impressed with and I agree with a large portion of his manifesto, granted I can take it for what it is, completely removed from his actions.
He was a lion who understood that the system and the society layered underneath it are made of rules that can easily be broken.
If he had been more subtle though he might have subverted the system, caused his ripple and maybe still be free to create another. His methods are crude and quicker but not better.
Take for instance his own manifesto where he called for the assassination of certain powerful and wel known public officials. Had he brought about that he'd have been much more efficient.
He also attacked the effects of the problem and not the cause, confusing matters and making it harder for others to follow him. Had he attacked the system at it's critical soft points he might have cause a real lasting revolution, one that others might follow, rather than live his life in prison as a forgotten martyr for his cause.
No.3836
>>3775It's because White people are only allowed to shut up and take their own death. Everything is valid against them, including censorship and surveillance. They better not know the kind of soykaf that's upon them.
And you're a Neo-Nazi if you don't want European countries to become the Middle East. How dare you fall into the tricks of not wanting to lose your country and your people. Sheesh.
No.3838
>>3837OTOH, not all speech is a valuable contribution, not all speech is welcome, and people who insist on their right to be obnoxious and hateful are merely advertising what awful people they are.
People have a right to free speech but we also have the right to tell someone to shut the fuck up.
Not to mention, it is plain naivete to think that allowing others to preach terrible things has no negative consequences. Only a fool thinks that society is some ideal open forum and bad ideas will naturally be defeated by open debate: hucksters and grifters and advertisers abound, nobody is immune to them.
No.3839
>people ITT saying they like that guy who shot innocent civilians
He was degenerate scum, I hope he gets executed.
>people ITT saying that they need to "defend Europe" or some soykaf
for one, Kiwistan etc are colonial nations, pure hypocrisy to complain about outside invaders when your ancestors raped and pillaged the people living there.
The middle east is fucked up because of European empires. It was arbitrarily split up by colonial powers who then used them to wage proxy wars and extract resources, is it really a wonder that their leaders are tyrannical maniacs and their religion is hyper-conservative?
for another, if you wrap up your identity in some "white european culture" then you're just some snivelling untermensch like them. Fragile and weak. It's no wonder you're losing the culture wars if you care about them so much.
No.3840
>>3838Who gets to say what is valuable or hateful? Listen to yourself. Nobody should have that power and if websites are being taken down, that's exactly what's happening The norm of yesterday is the unacceptable of today and so on and so on. It's subjective. People shouldn't ever be protected from ideas. Negative consequences can't be blamed on ideas. Even if they could, it's not the government's job to try to stop that from ever happening. I'm suprised you're even on this website.
>>3839What does it matter what happened in the past? Might makes right. If you don't have the strength to defend your land, you don't deserve to have it. Self-hatred and guilt over what your ancestors did is pathetic. The Ottoman Empire wasn't some kind of utopia or bastion of innovation.
No.3842
>>3840>governmentMade a mistake here. Given how much power isps have, the effect is not too far off.
Also, you can tell people to shut up all you want, but you shouldn't have reason to expect that to do anything. Screw only allowing "welcome speech".
No.3845
>>3843I don't believe government and freedom of expression are mutually exclusive. I'd rather live a place where I don't have to worry about being stolen from or murdered as much and somebody is maintaining roads and hospitals reliably. That doesn't mean I shouldn't have the right to access released information and express whatever ideas I please without authoritative restriction. Individual websites can choose to allow whatever they want, and so can bookstores, but realistically there's always an available outlet unless somebody actively prevents it.
No.3846
>>3845You would still have hospitals/safety, though. The only difference is that everything would become a service. Cops would still exist, but they would most likely become a subscription service. Either that, or you'd move into a private neighborhood that features private cops (if you're really that paranoid).
Committing a crime wouldn't really be as easy as people think. Most people would have guns, so anyone stupid enough to commit a crime will have to face bullets in their heads.
And as for roads, well, same thing, the roads would be managed by corporations. Where I live, the roads on the mountains are maintained by the government, and they fucking suck! They're dirty and full of holes! Meanwhile, the highway roads are maintained by a company and, those roads are squeaky clean! Of course, you have to pay to use those roads, but that money is used to maintain the roads and is what makes them superior to the public roads! My country may be soykafty, but at least its a great example of public vs private.
No.3847
>>3846What would break up monopolies? Would would stop companies from essentially replacing the government with their own weaponry? If it's advantageous, a company will do it. There's nothing to stop price raising, overworking employees, etc. Competition? I'll either buy them out blow their brains out. Who would stop me? Civilians? With their pea shooters against my tanks and tear gas? Speaking of money, what would give it value? The gold standard? Where are you going to get enough gold? What if gold stops being valuable?
No.3848
>>3847None of this is to say governments are perfect. Corruption is inevitable in any system, but some systems propagate it faster and lack effective methods to remove it. Governments should maintain the physcial safety of people and give land sovereignty, and companies should generate capital. Meanwhile, people should be allowed to say whatever they feel like without either interfering.
No.3849
>>3847Monopolies can only happen with government payouts (you can see this especially with garbage companies like Coca-cola and Mcdonalds). Competition WOULD indeed stop monopolies, as every company will always do something to one-up each other, meaning the prices will always be as low as possible and the service they provide will also try to be better than the competition! The only way that monopolies happen is if a company pays the government to control a certain product/service (see Martin Skhreli and his pill which he raised to $700 overnight because he copyrighted the pill to make sure no one else can sell the pill!)
That thing you said about companies using weaponry to overthrow the government, control the people, ect. That could literally happen now, even with a government! There's literally nothing stopping Mcdonalds from illegally buying a bunch of nukes and starting a war. But, they don't do it because they'd have to be completely out of their minds! What would they gain from that? International hatred by every single human being? HOW would that give them an advantage?
And as for money, it'd probably turn into something like the cryptocurrency wars. There'd be a lot of currencies popping in and out of existence, and only the most valuable currencies will be accepted by most people. It doesn't need to be physical currency. For all we know, bitcoins could actually just replace physical money.
No.3850
>>3849>Monopolies can only happen with government payoutsI don't buy it. Companies have more things in their tool box than that. AT&T didn't need government payouts as far as I know.
>every company will always do something to one-up each otherThis is definitely wrong. You can see it on a small scale with supermarket prices. Companies are always testing the limits of how high they can raise prices before people get fed up with it. Supermarkets will all do this together without any one of them lowering prices. It's not a sure-fire mathematical certainty that one of them will lower their prices.
Companies can also work together to collectively screw people over. They can establish turfs and learn from example. A song and dance of competition isn't always better than just doing the same thing and forcing it on customers. Starting a new business to contend with giants isn't something most people could do and succeed at, or even be willing to try. A new business crops up with way lower prices and by chance they get more business, the giant could lower their prices for just long enough to get the new guy out of business.
>That could literally happen nowHighly doubt it given governmental regulations. It's not advantageous now either because they have the government to compete with. With no government there's a power vacuum.
>cryptocurrency warsThat sounds awful and destabilising. China could swoop into a country with no government and take over. Companies may even prefer that arrangement. The whole world would have to collectively become anarchist for it to work for even a short while.
