Anti-TPP Website Being Blacklisted 180
so.dan writes: The CTO of Fight for the Future — the non-profit activism group behind Battle for the Net, Blackout Congress, and Stop Fast Track — Jeff Lyon, is seeking advice regarding a problem with facing the website they created — stopfasttrack.com — to fight the secret Trans Pacific Partnership trade deal.
The site been blacklisted by Twitter, Facebook, and major email providers as malicious/spam. Over the last week, nobody has been able to post the website on social networks, or send any emails with their URL. Lyon has posted a summary of the relevant details on Reddit in the hope of obtaining useful feedback regarding what the cause might be. However, none of the answers there right now seem particularly useful, so I'm hoping the Slashdot community can help him out by posting here.
Lyon indicates that the blackout has occurred at a particularly crucial point in the campaign to kill the TPP, as most members of the House of Representatives would likely vote against it were it brought to a vote now, and as pro-TPP interests have started to escalate their lobbying efforts on the House to counteract what would otherwise be a no vote.
The site been blacklisted by Twitter, Facebook, and major email providers as malicious/spam. Over the last week, nobody has been able to post the website on social networks, or send any emails with their URL. Lyon has posted a summary of the relevant details on Reddit in the hope of obtaining useful feedback regarding what the cause might be. However, none of the answers there right now seem particularly useful, so I'm hoping the Slashdot community can help him out by posting here.
Lyon indicates that the blackout has occurred at a particularly crucial point in the campaign to kill the TPP, as most members of the House of Representatives would likely vote against it were it brought to a vote now, and as pro-TPP interests have started to escalate their lobbying efforts on the House to counteract what would otherwise be a no vote.
Free Speech (Score:3, Interesting)
Is not guaranteed from private organizations.
Re:Free Speech (Score:5, Insightful)
If you run a messenger service, you aren't entitled to decide that select groups can't use your service. You can't decide that you will monitor the messages, and only deliver those messages that you approve of. You don't get to decide that you will deliver partisan messages that favor your position, and just lose messages that support the other side.
As an email provider/carrier/whatever, Google has a responsibility to pass the messages on, unless and until they actually violate some law.
How about if your phone company listens in to your conversations, and cuts you off when they disapprove of your conversation?
Now - you can twist a pair of panties into any kind of a wad you like, but you cannot twist morality and ethics enough to justify censorship of private communications. Nor can you justify political communications. Can't even justify censorship of business communications, until those communications violate a valid law.
Re: (Score:1)
Morality is ultimately relative.
Also, you really can't compare a phone company to google, one has "common carrier" status, one does not. Should they? that is a different debate. Google may have a 'moral' responsibility ( whatever that means ) but they dont have a legal one. Sure, they will lose customers if they started reading/blocking/etc, but its their legal option to do so.
Re:Free Speech (Score:4, Insightful)
You may want to re-think your position.
The FCC redefined common Carrier to INCLUDE ISP's.
ISP's are defined as "an organization that provides services for accessing, using, or participating in the Internet."
I am sure Google and Google mail qualify under that definition, as would Facebook and Twitter.
Re:Free Speech (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Free Speech (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty sure if that were true then the Ford Motor Company have a lot to answer for.
Re: (Score:2)
Might want to read their terms of service. Odds are you are wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
If you run a messenger service, you aren't entitled to decide that select groups can't use your service.
LOLWUT?
How would that ever be enforced, other than 'the market'? There's no laws being violated. Principles, perhaps, but that isn't the same level as what you're trying to say they CAN'T do.
Re: (Score:3)
Reading comprehension. It is patently obvious that they CAN censor the email that crosses their servers. I said that it is unethical and immoral. I said that they are not ENTITLED to censor the mail on a whim.
In short, this goes a long way toward convincing me that the Google haters are right after all.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you need to go look up what entitled means. It's closer to having a right than a morality.
Re: (Score:3)
Still not getting it, are you?
Morality is a higher standard than legality. Anyone can buy a law, if they have enough money. You cannot buy a moral.
Re: (Score:3)
Anyone can buy a law, if they have enough money. You cannot buy a moral.
Of course you can buy morals. Just takes a big advertising budget, time and a message that resonates.. Examples include how drinking and driving has become immoral, throwing out litter, a bit further back, shitting in the river that we drink from or dumping your sewage in the gutter and in process, smoking tobacco.
Doesn't always work 100%, eg illegal drugs but it is amazing how many people believe heroin is pure evil.
Re:Free Speech (Score:5, Insightful)
The phone company isn't allowed to do that because it's legally defined as a "Common Carrier."
Facebook et al., on the other hand, aren't. I'm not sure, but I doubt most email services are either.
It may be arbitrary, unfair and anti-democratic, but that what happens when citizens can't be fucking bothered to pay attention and give the goddamn lobbyists free reign to write the laws!
Re:Free Speech (Score:5, Insightful)
...but that what happens when citizens can't be fucking bothered to pay attention and give the goddamn lobbyists free reign to write the laws!
Literally blaming the victim. Heh.
Look, it's not simply a case of "We just weren't prepared enough for this, didn't take any precautions, and did nothing to stop it." this is systematic rot that has been eating away at our rights for decades. We've fought it all over the place. Our method of rooting it out has itself been rotted away. We live in "democracies" where our votes are meaningless now.
There is no internal solution to this anymore. It's more than evident that our votes don't matter, and anyone voted into office will be bribed or worse. This is no longer a matter of voting the right person in. That doesn't mean 'give up'. It means 'start working outside the system'. You'll know it's effective when the government starts banning whatever method it is you've chosen for changing the system, the media starts demonizing you to destroy any popular/public support, and the intelligence agencies infiltrate your group to destroy it from within.
In fact, we have two prime examples already of this taking place: Occupy Wall Street, and the Tea Party movement. Anyone who thinks we haven't been fighting the blatant corruption in our government hasn't been paying attention. We've been fighting plenty; it's just that we've also been losing.
As I mentioned earlier - this is only going to get worse as time goes on. I'd honestly argue that many western nations are practical powderkegs right now. I don't think it's going to take much more for armed rebellion to start taking place. Another 2008 "recession", a sharp rise in the price of food, a couple more serious scandals like snowden, or CIA torture. People are getting fed up. People are noticing that their votes aren't changing anything.
Pretty soon people are going to start changing things in their own ways - and that isn't going to be pretty. It's going to leave many people wondering if we weren't better off just being the cattle we're being treated as.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think it's going to take much more for armed rebellion to start taking place. Another 2008 "recession", a sharp rise in the price of food, a couple more serious scandals like snowden, or CIA torture.
You need to stop smoking crack so early in the day. Wait until after 8:00pm, at least.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm afraid being infiltrated doesn't mean you're being effective. It just means you've been noticed, and the FBI thinks you're vaguely political.
Re: (Score:2)
Good post. Unfortunately, "we" are far to few. How long do you think it would take for congress to pass a law we wanted, if EVERY DAMNED REGISTERED VOTER IN THE COUNTRY were to write a letter, as well as send an email, in addition to making a phone call to each of their congress critters?
Really - if your congress critter got all three forms of communication from each registered voter in his district, DEMANDING that he stop TPP, what are the chances that he would continue to pocket the bribes, and approve
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"We attain power by being useful to others."
Obviously, you are a tool. A wiling tool, at that.
Re: (Score:2)
A far more effective use for your money would be joining a trade union.
Re: (Score:2)
He's talking about engaging in the pay-for-play that is the reality of much of politics. Pony up a few thousand dollars, and you get someone's attention. If you don't have it, get together a group of people who can collectively do so, and you might get some attention from politicians.
Re: (Score:2)
there is a very simple answer, and I don't give a fuck what you say, this is completely legal: spoil your ballot by marking a single line through ALL the boxes and writing in the margin: "NONE OF THE ABOVE".
A "NONE OF THE ABOVE" is not a protest vote, it's a vote for regime change.
Tell me, what changed after the last election? Anything? Was anything brought in by the incumbent immediately reversed by the incoming as they took over? Anything at all? Please, tell me, just ONE SINGLE FUCKING THING?
I'll wait.
Re: (Score:2)
It may be arbitrary, unfair and anti-democratic, but that what happens when citizens can't be fucking bothered to pay attention and give the goddamn lobbyists free reign to write the laws!
If you could be so kind, could you remind us all at what point businesses in the US were bound by the First Amendment? I can't seem to find it in my history book.
Re: (Score:2)
since corporate entities were granted Personhood status in Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. 518 (1819).
Further reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
facebook, gmail etc in most western countries aren't actually allowed to spy on your mail.
how spam filters fit into that.. well.. i guess they argue that you're running them and not them.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes you can. This is different from the phone companies because the phone companies are not private corporations but a public utility and have a common carrier
Re: (Score:2)
Terms of Service usually cover various forms of objectionable content, and many of them describe them along the lines of "such as but not limited to racism, sexism, etc." They have the right to determine what goes over their servers if they don't have common carrier status.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I was thinking editing outside the TOS defined terms. However, in looking for a cite to the prodigy lawsuit, I noticed that the communications decency act of 96 pretty much gave service providers a lot of immunity to leeway to edit content so I guess my point is pointless anyways.
Re: (Score:2)
If you run a messenger service, you aren't entitled to decide that select groups can't use your service. You can't decide that you will monitor the messages, and only deliver those messages that you approve of. You don't get to decide that you will deliver partisan messages that favor your position, and just lose messages that support the other side.
I'm fine with you doing all of these, as long as you're willing to take responsibility for every message sent on your service. Bomb threats, death threats, trade secrets, copyright infringement, all become your liability - if you're policing the content then you're responsible for it.
Re: (Score:3)
If you run a messenger service, you aren't entitled to decide that select groups can't use your service. You can't decide that you will monitor the messages, and only deliver those messages that you approve of. You don't get to decide that you will deliver partisan messages that favor your position, and just lose messages that support the other side.
As an email provider/carrier/whatever, Google has a responsibility to pass the messages on, unless and until they actually violate some law.
How about if your phone company listens in to your conversations, and cuts you off when they disapprove of your conversation?
Now - you can twist a pair of panties into any kind of a wad you like, but you cannot twist morality and ethics enough to justify censorship of private communications. Nor can you justify political communications. Can't even justify censorship of business communications, until those communications violate a valid law.
Morally and ethically, you have a point - but legally, no. Telephone companies in the US have specific laws regulating what they can and can't do - but if Google decided that from now on, any email containing the word "viagra" would get blocked from Gmail, that's up to them. Probably not a useful choice (spammers already use workarounds like "\/iagra" anyway, and the occasional legitimate email would get caught) but it is theirs to make. Indeed, this very site has a few rules to reduce spam and misuse - so
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Maybe it's time to revise that stance now that we have multinational huge organisations. They weren't a factor to count in when the First Amendment was written.
Re:Free Speech (Score:5, Informative)
Huh? There were plenty of huge multinational organizations when the first amendment was created. Part of the revolutionary war was because of several and all but two of the original 13 colonies was sponsored/created by them. They largely operated under Proprietary charters and many of the state names are derived from them. Most of them were revoked and a royal charter was in place by the 1760s but even then, we have the Boston Tea Party which was a protest over taxes created to reward the failing East India Company.
Re: (Score:2)
HSBC
the East India Tea Company
Silk Road Trading
The real point is that the First Amendment, to take the example, was written in terms of the speech not the speaker. The speaker could be an individual or it could be a corporation (per https://supreme.justia.com/cas... [justia.com] (link will likely kick up a warning, the site is safe)), both enjoy the guarantees of the US Constitution inside the jurisdiction, both also bear the responsibilities.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There were a few, but not to the same extend that we see today - most people weren't impacted by them, while today almost everyone is impacted by a multinational company.
obvious questions (Score:5, Informative)
1. Were you in fact spamming? If you injected your message lots of places where it was off topic, then you were spamming and earned your ban. If you failed to follow email best practices (this means *confirmed* opt-in prior to receiving any list content) then you were spamming and earned your ban.
2. Has the web site been hacked with malicious code? Assume yes until you can get a clean bill of health by bona fide security expert.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:obvious questions (Score:5, Interesting)
It's the "imediately unsubscribe anyone who wishes to unsubscribe" comment that sent up a red flag for me. That's opt-out. Spammer language.
Best practices are that after you receive a request to subscribe to the mailing list you send a single email requesting confirmation, typically with a link or a code. Only after the recipient enters the code or clicks the link is he subscribed to the list.
This protects individuals from having unauthorized third parties subscribe them to the mailing list, as is often attempted especially with political mailing lists.
Re: (Score:3)
Also, UIs for popular email clients may be to blame. Sometimes it's easier to hit the big friendly Mark as Spam button to get the functionality of unsubscribing. If enough people do this, then all your mail is going to be blocked as spam, even if it was legitimately subscribed to.
Re: (Score:2)
I periodically hear that claim. One variant is that when someone posts spam on the list a lot of folks supposedly mark it as spam, causing the list itself to lose reputation instead of the spammer.
I've not seen data to either support or refute the claim, though I have to concede it's possible. On the other hand, I'm a bit jaded about it since I most heard the claim in connection with a particular single-opt-in political list that I knew to have bogus addresses due to the lack of confirmation.
Re:Free Speech (Score:5, Informative)
The site isn't claiming that they're being censored, or that it's a Constitutional free speech issue, just that they're being blocked. It's possible that some anti-spam rule triggered against their site for some reason - anti-spam systems use statistical models and rules, and aren't always right, which is why they all have some appeal mechanism to get human judgement involved. So right now they're trying to get enough public visibility to the issue, demonstrating that the site is legitimate and that many people care about it, which gives whoever's blocking the site to have an incentive to pay attention and fix it.
If they don't raise a fuss, they'll almost certainly be ignored and stay blocked, which isn't a good outcome.
If I had to guess, the site might have gotten flagged by one of the black-listing services, and since many people subscribe to those services the one flag could cause them to be blocked everywhere. So if they can get enough attention to get that service to un-block them, it'll get better everywhere.
Re:Free Speech (Score:4, Informative)
The site isn't claiming that they're being censored, or that it's a Constitutional free speech issue, just that they're being blocked.
So, I posted a link to the Stop Fast Track website on Facebook, to see if it would be blocked, and it wasn't. I can see the website link from Facebook, my friends can see the website and post on it. So, if it was a mistake to block it, it's fixed now. Get all fired up people.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've run mail servers sending millions of emails (to people who requested them, not SPAM) and you run into these things fairly often. For a big site with tons of users, a request gets things fixed pretty quickly. For a tiny web site, it can take a long time since it doesn't affect many people so it's low priority. So raising a fuss like this is a reasonable thing to try.
BTW, the issue resolved pretty quickly. From what I read, the site added some anti-SPAM headers to their emails and got things cleared up p
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is not guaranteed from private organizations.
In the Free World but not in the USofA.
Around my ways we even have Freedom of Information!
Re: (Score:2)
Is not guaranteed from private organizations.
No, but evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, being a private organisation doesn't require that you act like dick.
Censorship in the US (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Censorship in the US (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
That's why I carefully selected my ISP and mail provider, I can choose to receive all mail, including what is spam for others.
Now the problem is that a very large part of the world's population has selected Google (gmail) for mail and Facebook and Twitter for their information, dumb, yes but that's the present situation. (for dumb people).
It's similar to watching Fox News and declaring you're watching the news.
Re:Censorship in the US (Score:5, Insightful)
That or use URL shortening service.
My bet is it is actually being spammed and appropriately being marked as such.
Re:Censorship in the US (Score:5, Interesting)
I know after what seemed like my 5 millionth email from this group I marked it spam.
Never attribute to maliciousness etc etc ... (Score:5, Informative)
Furthermore, his homepage is chocka-block with links, that anyone could mistake for a link-farm / spam page.
There's no grand conspiracy here, just a webmaster who's not terribly savvy and some overzealous AI heuristics at Spamhaus, FB and Twitter playing it safe.
Nothing more to see here, please move along.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Note they've already added an SPF record.
Re:Never attribute to maliciousness etc etc ... (Score:4, Informative)
You're probably looking at the wrong page.....there are a lot of them in the summary. I believe this is the relevant page: https://www.stopfasttrack.com/ [stopfasttrack.com]. Note they've already added an SPF record.
Except any old SPF record isn't the same as a correct one.
for i in fightforthefuture.org blackoutcongress.org stopfasttrack.com;do dig -t ANY $i|grep '$i\|spf';done fightforthefuture.org. 299 IN TXT "v=spf1 include:mailgun.org include:spf.dynect.net ~all" fightforthefuture.org. 299 IN TXT "v=spf1 include:sendgrid.net include:spf.dynect.net include:_spf.google.com include:salsalabs.net ~all"
stopfasttrack.com does not have an SPF record.
The SPF record for fightforthefuture is wrong
No DKIM, no DMARC, no fucking idea what they are doing - 'cause email administration is not counter-intuitive. Right? (sigh)
And it's not like the top response [reddit.com] to his Reddit whine didn't point out why Google dumps his email - or how to check the SPF record.
But WTF, you don't need to be competent to lead a revolution (good intentions is all that counts when you're paving the road to a better world, right?)
Note also that in some (enlightened?) parts of the world unsolicited commercial (you want money?) that is not opt-in IS spam.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Never attribute to maliciousness etc etc ... (Score:5, Informative)
If you saw one IP address pelting your computer with spam, would you block a single port, or the whole damn thing?
Re: (Score:2)
Does Facebook and Twitter and such scan for links to domains blocked by spam lists? Seems to me to be a pretty good way to stop them from becoming a spam riddled craphole.
Re: (Score:3)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
It is easy to see what happened. Fitzgibbon Media seems more than just a bit spammy in their marketing operations, not malicious more like loud gossipy 'er' women. So they tended to take that poor behaviour into political activism in a worthwhile cause. What is interesting is likely their other paid professional marketing schemes have never run into this problem before and that find it surprising this time around.
So yeah, very likely specific individuals strove to shut it down early because they have bee
Re: (Score:2)
This is the same organization that ran the 2012 internet blackout to protest SOPA, yet somehow it seems that if people had been unable to post about the internet blackout in the very days leading up to it, there might have been a bit more indignation than we have today.
Really? (Score:2)
Hanlon's Razor.
The guy is utterly clueless.
Re: (Score:1)
Not really. It's a good way to get free press. And this issue could use a little more. Unless we can 'sunset' these treaties, we shouldn't be so hasty to pass them.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you suggesting he intentionally neglected to add an SPF record just so he could make a big stink about getting blacklisted by spamhaus?
I just fired off three emails (Score:2)
One to my congressman and one to each senator.
Don't really know what else to do.
Re: (Score:2)
I've done that for years and have never had to deal with anything at airport security that everyone doesn't deal with...
Fun fact for you, I actually legally skip most security check points.
So... I'm not only not getting subjected to more, I'm subjected to less.
I had to pay about 50 bucks for the ID and go through all the forms etc... but then they leave you alone.
Re:I just fired off three emails (Score:5, Insightful)
First, we don't know everything about it because it is being kept secret to a large extent and debate is being officially suppressed.
Second, yeah there are a lot of problems we've gotten out of it via leaks.
1. There is some sort of committee being set up to settle a wide array of disputes that the US will have to submit itself to whether or not it wants to. The committee will be made up of unelected officials from many nations and their decisions will be binding on the US. That all by itself is unacceptable. Its like wishing for infinite wishes. You write into the agreement that some group can obligate you to abide by new regulations that some other committee comes up with whenever they want? No.
2. There is a lot of information security stuff in there. Basically they're exporting a lot of the NSA wire tap stuff to the rest of the world and they're forcing the US to continue to spy on its own people to comply in turn.
3. There are a lot of regulations on labor unions that shouldn't be involved in a trade agreement.
4. There are an almost endless list of ticky tacky regulations that they're requiring on everything including paying private hospitals money if you open a public hospital near them to compensate them for POTENTIAL losses to their profits. But really there are an almost endless list of these.
5. Basically no one in government has read the thing and yet they want to have a vote on it when no one has read it. They will let congressman go in there and read it. But they can't take it with them, they can't take notes out of the room with it in there, and they can't tell people what is in the thing.
6. THat it is secret is a bad sign in and of itself. If it isn't going against US interests then there is no reason to suppress knowledge of it or suppress debate. The argument is being made that if more people knew about it, then it would make negociations harder. However, that isn't rational because you can use the US congress as defacto bad cop in the negociations. Where in the administration could say "well, I'd like to do that but I'd never get that through congress". Suppressing information means our bargaining position is weakened and it is more likely that bad legislation or bad regulations will get through congress because no one will have read them before they were signed into law.
Congressman rarely read all these bills. They're too long. They use staffers and interest groups and the media to do the heavy lifting. And by denying congress the ability to use those features, they're basically forbidding congress from reading the law. Has Obama read the whole thing? Of course not. He's used his own staffers, interest groups, etc to read it for him and distill it to what he's going to care about.
Congressman do the same thing. You can't deny their staffers and interest groups and the media access to the legislation and expect them to know what was in the bill.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't deny their staffers and interest groups and the media access to the legislation and expect them to know what was in the bill.
Sure you can, they can just pass the Bill/Treaty and then they can find out what's in the Bill/Treaty. Didn't Nancy Pelosi teach us anything?
It's the "New Normal".
But don't let the wrong lizard get in!
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly... whatever anyone thinks of the ACA it shouldn't have passed the way it did. It just pissed people off.
Anyone that says they need to subvert the democratic process doesn't value the democratic process.
Nothing to see... move along. (Score:5, Informative)
From the comments below the article....
1) Site was on spamhaus's blacklist.
2) Someone with more exerience than the poster suggested he add SPF records.
3) Poster added SPF records and thanked the other person.
4) Site is no longer on spamhaus's blacklist.
I got tired of reading comments before I figured out if this resolved all the poster's complaints.
facebook link no problem (Score:1)
Does Facebook and Twitter and such scan for links to domains blocked by spam lists?
i just posted a link on facebook no problem.
Surprising TPP Opposition List (Score:1, Interesting)
All the opponents of TPP listed on that web site are left wing. Usually, such groups applaud statist economic and personal intervention, especially with such things as the TPP which is rumored to include some very strict AGW rules.
Kind of half-assed... (Score:4, Interesting)
Apart from the pretty colors, it's pretty badly designed. There's only the one video explaining why it's bad, no text, no in-depth analysis, no outside opinions, no nothing. There isn't even (that I could find) a link to the text of the TPP. This might be a seriously important cause, but the website's not making a very good case against it.
Anyone know and want to elaborate on what this TPP is?
Re: (Score:2)
Half-assed. Oh, the irony.
Here you go http://lmgtfy.com/?q=tpp [lmgtfy.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Nice site. Didn't know it but I can see it will get a lot of use here on slashdot :)
Re: (Score:2)
Is it also nice what they do to the back navigation button?
Re: (Score:2)
Apart from the pretty colors, it's pretty badly designed.
Excess use of pretty colors is frequently a sign of bad design.
Note - I didn't visit the site so I'm not saying that this site has a problem with excess use of pretty colors. I'm just saying that "apart from pretty colors" shouldn't imply that using pretty colors is always a good idea.
Re:Kind of half-assed... (Score:5, Insightful)
Apart from the pretty colors, it's pretty badly designed. There's only the one video explaining why it's bad, no text, no in-depth analysis, no outside opinions, no nothing. There isn't even (that I could find) a link to the text of the TPP.
Even members of the US Congress only get extremely limited access [commondreams.org] to the text of the TPP:
Only members of the House and Senate are currently allowed to view the text of the deal, and even they are forbidden from discussing what it contains. As a new report from Politico published Monday details, "If you’re a member who wants to read the text, you’ve got to go to a room in the basement of the Capitol Visitor Center and be handed it one section at a time, watched over as you read, and forced to hand over any notes you make before leaving."
You basically have to be a negotiator or a representative of large business interests to get full access. Some chapters (5 out of 31) of the text have been made available via Wikileaks [wikileaks.org] until now.
Anyone know and want to elaborate on what this TPP is?
The best, and definitely the most enjoyable, primer on the potential for abuse of the TPP (based on abuse of previously negotiated similar trade agreements) and the underhanded way it's being negotiated, is probably John Oliver's segment [youtube.com] on it.
Re: (Score:2)
"The best, and definitely the most enjoyable, primer on the potential for abuse of the TPP (based on abuse of previously negotiated similar trade agreements) and the underhanded way it's being negotiated, is probably John Oliver's segment on it."
That link now goes to a video of Oliver's discussing Big Tobacco.
Doing a search on YouTube for "John Oliver t" auto-fills with "John Oliver Trans Pacific Partnership" as third, leading me to the conclusion that quite a few people are searching for that video--which
Re: (Score:2)
Just watch that episode, it is a.o. about big tobacco (ab)using similar "free trade" agreements. I don't remember if he explicitly mentions TPP, but I believe he does.
When will we be done with useless acronyms? (Score:2, Funny)
Here at the Nigerian Research Agency (NRA) we are also developing TPP:
Tele-Portation Protocol (TPP).
Your contributions will be refunded in full. Send us you cash or wire transfer and we will Teleport it back to you in only few days after we receive it; the time required to incorporate the space-time continuum into the protocol.
Also please inform the smart-ass Slashdot editor that placing an acronym (TPP) in the hope that the readers will click to find out is not much different than the cheap dim-witted Inte
If only ... (Score:2)
URL works fine on G+ (Score:2)
Just tested it on G+ - not seeing any issue there
(cue people saying no-one uses G+ because none of THEIR 3 friends uses it)
Only part of the problem (Score:2)
Don't forget that where TPP covers the Pacific there's also TTIP for the Atlantic and because this shit always comes in threes there's TISA as well,
Seems to be working now (Score:2)
Sue them for defamation (Score:2)
Or is it slander? I'm not a lawyer.
In essence, these sites claim that your site is maleware/spam. This seems to me to be an actionable claim.
Furthermore, winning such a court case would also result in companies not automatically listening to those falsly reporting, or placing a proper appeal process into their blocking procedures.
Shachar
Bullshit (Score:2)
The CTO of Fight for the Future — the non-profit activism group
A registered non-profit?? Not that it (transparency) matters - a good cause is sufficient, and the more groups targeting that cause the easier the battle.
behind Battle for the Net, Blackout Congress, and Stop Fast Track — Jeff Lyon
That'd be the Chief Technologist - [lyonbros.com] FIGJAM [urbandictionary.com] self-certified Jeffery S. Lyon
The site been blacklisted by Twitter, Facebook, and major email providers as malicious/spam.
Bullshit Not blacklisted [mxtoolbox.com]. A dig through the history shows that some of the email accounts have been blacklisted in the past - for spamming. No conspiracy, just piss poor security, hunger for publicity, bad manners, and general IT ignorance. (e.g. complain about Ffffacebook and Goo
Re: (Score:1)
They mean anybody putting it on their damn wall, you ass. But hey, it IS
Re:"Nobody has been able to..." (Score:4, Insightful)
Facebook is not the internet. Facebook is its own cryptic walled garden of bullshit that you've adopted as your medium of self expression. It's not public property.
Re: "Nobody has been able to..." (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I remember NAFTA was supposed to save American jobs and not long after that was signed manufacturing began disappearing out of the US.
Manufacturing started disappearing from the U.S. decades before NAFTA was signed.
Re:Remember NAFTA? (Score:5, Informative)
True, but that accelerated after NAFTA. In part because the promised protections used to get the votes to pass NAFTA were not delivered on. That history of lying to get profitable deals passed is why it's important not to agree to TPP, etc., without knowing what's actually in it, and not to believe promises about the future.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting link with some info about that: http://www.independent.co.uk/v... [independent.co.uk]
(It's about TTIP, which seems the same as TPP but aimed at the EU). The article claims NAFTA caused the loss of around 1 million US jobs, as opposed to the promised gain of hundreds of thousands of extra jobs.
Re: (Score:2)
Good article. Thanks for posting!
Re: (Score:3)
I would say quite a few of them do. They invade slashdot quite heavily any time there is an election or some protest we are supposed to be behind because it's the social justice warrior thing to do or something. Some have accounts and some post anon.