A Horrifying Interactive Map of Global Internet Censorship 158
An anonymous reader writes "Imagine a world where the book burners had won. A world where information is filtered and must be approved by governments before it can be accessed by their citizens. A world where people are held down and kept in line by oppressive regimes that restrict the free flow of information and bombard citizens with government-approved messages. Now stop imagining, because this horrifying world already exists..."
[censored] (Score:4, Funny)
[censored]
Re: (Score:1)
and why is the data from 2012? Looks like the author of the article followed a link to a 2012 report and wrote an article using that info, without any attempt to update. Or else the project died, or was censored?
Too many questions, my brain hurts when there is bad articles, bad data, bad , bad , bad................turtles. everywhere....
Re: (Score:2)
our ISPs are not above direct HTTP injection just to let you know you're approaching the bandwidth cap
It's shit like this... [eff.org]
It sounds like their intentions are good with that particular case though, if I'm understanding correctly. I'd far prefer an SMS, personally...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Give me a little censorship in the States any day over Quebec's crazy-ass "cultural heritage" laws. I never have to sorry about being thrown in prison in the U.S. because I dare to put up a sign in the wrong language, or dare to piss off some crazy French nationalist by suggesting that England may not be so bad.
Re: (Score:1)
I very much disagree with Quebec's (and the rest of the country's) language laws, but the US isn't some magical place where all these problems don't exist - they just don't exist for the english pop
Re:What about.. (Score:5, Informative)
US isn't some magical place where all these problems don't exist - they just don't exist for the english population.
I live in San Jose, California. It is very common to see business signs ONLY in Spanish, Chinese, or Vietnamese. There are no laws requiring businesses to accommodate English speakers. Nor should there be. The USA is not Quebec.
Re: (Score:2)
Give me no censorship at all; anything else is 100% intolerable, regardless of how bad other countries are.
Re: (Score:2)
Give me a little censorship in the States any day over Quebec's crazy-ass "cultural heritage" laws. I never have to sorry about being thrown in prison in the U.S. because I dare to put up a sign in the wrong language, or dare to piss off some crazy French nationalist by suggesting that England may not be so bad.
Fuck the censorship and fuck the crazy ass French Canadians.
Both are bad for society.
Re: What about.. (Score:1, Troll)
Takes some seriously Orwellian doublethink to pretend copyright enforcement isn't censorship. The idea that the USA is a bastion of freedom... wake me up when there's a study made by people who aren't batshit crazy.
Corporate "laws" (Score:5, Interesting)
Takes some seriously Orwellian doublethink to pretend copyright enforcement isn't censorship.
I think this is the result of a very narrow view point when making the map. They seem to only care about censorship by the state through direct laws. Increasingly in the US, and so some extent the rest of the western world, it is not government which restricts our rights but companies. They need to make a second map showing countries where companies have used laws to force, or bully, people into being censored through the threat of massive financial penalties.
Re: (Score:3)
I agree... there should be a color for this. In between "Free" and "Partly free"; there should be a "Technically Free but de-facto censored" category
For countries where corporations can use legal techniques such as DMCA to intimidate web site operators into removing speech.
Aiding and abetting infringement (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Under the definition you suggest, any WTO member recognizing the legal theory of aiding and abetting infringement
If by that you mean posting just a link to someone else's content might be illegal if the material at your link contains something infringing in the content, then you bet that's "partly free" and non-free in a particularly troublesome way.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree... there should be a color for this. In between "Free" and "Partly free"; there should be a "Technically Free but de-facto censored" category
Why are you so afraid to call a spade a spade? The USA is NOT a free country. They censor people, they incarcerate more of their population than any other country, they make debt slaves of the people that remain... they are NOT FREE, and they're using war to spread their NOT FREEDOM everywhere they can because they hate OUR freedom.
Re: (Score:2)
Why are you so afraid to call a spade a spade?
Because they believe they're free.
I want to emphasize the fact that there some countries that truly are, and others that are deceiving their people.
Re: (Score:3)
Half true. Copyright isn't intended as a tool of censorship - it isn't to stop people getting access to information, but to make sure they pay for it. Generally if a copyright holder is trying to stop you downloading a movie off the internet, they really do want you to see it - but through their own approved channel.
That said, it can certainly be abused for censorship, and frequently is. But that isn't the purpose of it. Just an incidental effect.
Your life is SO AWFUL. (Score:4, Interesting)
Takes some seriously Orwellian doublethink to pretend copyright enforcement isn't censorship.
If copyright issues are your biggest complaint, you have a pretty good life. I am betting you have electricity, running water, and toilets, things much of the "free world" doesn't have, much less relative freedom of speech. You simply have no idea what life is like outside your environment. Please do travel outside your local country. Hopefully, it will be an eye-opener (and heart-opener) for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Your ad hominem attack is irrelevant to the topic at hand. It's also flat out wrong; I've traveled to numerous different countries, and spent several years living outside my home country.
You talk about infrastructure like it's the be-all-and-end-all of everything. It's not.
Re: (Score:2)
Takes some seriously Orwellian doublethink to pretend copyright enforcement isn't censorship.
If copyright issues are your biggest complaint, you have a pretty good life. I am betting you have electricity, running water, and toilets, things much of the "free world" doesn't have, much less relative freedom of speech. You simply have no idea what life is like outside your environment. Please do travel outside your local country. Hopefully, it will be an eye-opener (and heart-opener) for you.
ya, no. Traveling requires going thru the TSA, which is something those 3rd worlds don't have. Which I think most americans would be glad to give them.
As for me? I'll never fly air again while we got the TSA going on. If half the people who fly took that stance, the TSA would be gone in less then a year. The government would have to remove them because the airlines wouldn't be making profit for their shareholders.
Doesn't work (Score:3)
The summary links to an article which has a link in it to the map which doesn't load.
What a waste of space. Why is this on Slashdot? Find a reliable source, and then post it.
Re:Doesn't work (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks! I live in Canada, but it's greyed out? Our internet is not censored, or if it is, they do such a good job that I don't even know it's censored.
Re: (Score:3)
The only thing we have in Canada is CleanFeed [wikipedia.org] it's it's optional for any ISP, they can use it, or not use it. Large ISP's like Bell and Rogers use it, or have used it in the past. Not sure if they still do. Smaller ISP's like distributel, teksavvy, execulink, etc., don't use it.
Re: (Score:3)
Grayed out just means the study didn't include them. Your internet is probably fine.
This isn't very cool. They're supposedly making a map that is supposed to convince us that internet censorship is widespread, then they gray out most of the countries and don't include them in the study.
I think they just chose a pool of countries to study that are known to have highly censored internet access.
Re: (Score:2)
Works for me. Maybe the servers are just choking under the load.
Here's a screenshot : http://a.pomf.se/xcxzwr.png [a.pomf.se]
I've been on /. for 15 years. That's the first time I've clicked an image link here that actually went to the image that I was expecting. Thank you.
Re:Doesn't work (Score:5, Funny)
The summary links to an article which has a link in it to the map which doesn't load.
It's probably been censored by your ISP :)
Re: (Score:2)
The summary links to an article which has a link in it to the map which doesn't load.
What a waste of space. Why is this on Slashdot? Find a reliable source, and then post it.
Are you sure you're not censored???!!?!??!?!?!!1111zomg
But yes, the actual map is slashdotted
Re: (Score:2)
You want to contact the site and offer to mirror it on your own servers, be our guest.
.
Re: (Score:3)
North Korea not listed? (Score:2)
North Korea should be very NOT FREE.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Slashdotted (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm in ur base, strip serchin' ur cheezburgers?
This webpage is not available Reload (Score:2)
Looks like they censored themselves.
Re: (Score:1)
[Citation Needed] (Score:5, Informative)
United States is shown as:
VIOLATIONS OF USER RIGHTS 12/40
FREEDOM ON THE NET 17/100
OBSTACLES TO ACCESS 4/25
LIMITS ON CONTENT 1/35
But they don't say what these things are and which ones are violated. Without the context and citations the results are meaningless -- I could create the same thing in Paint.
Re:[Citation Needed] (Score:5, Informative)
If you get to the specific page for the US, it lists the following as conditions that were met:
- Political, Social and/or Religious Content Blocked?
- Localized or Nationwide ICT Shutdown?
- Pro-government Commentators Manipulate Online Discussions?
- New Law/Directive Increasing Censorship or Punishment Passed?
- New Law/Directive Increasing Surveillance or Restricting Anonymity Passed?
- Blogger/ICT User Arrested for Political or Social Writings?
- Blogger/ICT User Physically Attacked or Killed (including in custody)?
- Technical Attacks Against Government Critics and Human Rights Organisations?
Nowhere are any of those cited (at least not publicly that I could see), but at least a few of them do appear to be true, based on news we've all likely heard.
Re: (Score:3)
No, it actually says the USA does none of those things. Those are Xes next to those, not the check marks it has for violations.
Re: (Score:1)
Germany is free?
A country where there are legislations against Holocaust denial?
You gotta be fuckin kiddin me.
Link has no map? (Score:3, Interesting)
It links to an article that wants you to click a lot more before you ever get to any map. What the hell ever happened to accessing information on the web, as opposed to clicking just on a bunch of ads?
Imagine a world where global advertising has eliminated all information, never mind censorship. That world has already happened.
Re:Link has no map? (Score:4, Funny)
Don't worry, the upcoming trend is "native advertising" - having ads embedded on the content stream with the same format than articles (mmh, why does that sound familiar?). That way, you don't even need to click on the ads.
Re: (Score:2)
Lame.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Lame, lame and lame. It's been going on for years and just because your country doesn't ascribe to censorship they're most likely tracking your activities surreptitiously. While it was a lofty goal to have an Internet free from Censors, you're not going to get that to happen in every place all the time. There was once a trial in Canada over a very serious crime there was some testimony that was extremely sensitive involving the crime. The judge in the case issued a gag order including that of all Canadian press organizations not to publish details about it. That didn't of course apply to US journalists covering the trial who published the information in the US. This led to Canadian border agents seizing US newspapers because of the publication of the information. The point here is that some view censorship as beneficial in certain cases while others view it with disdain. For example, this week I saw a video of a beheading. Now after watching it I probably wish that somebody had filtered that for me.
Re: (Score:3)
I haven't seen a video of a beheading because someone filtered it for me. "Someone" being myself. I'm not going to purposefully watch a beheading video. So unless someone tricks me into watching one, I'm not going to see it.
Re: (Score:2)
Well I did it out of curiosity and being curious means some garish views in my minds eye. Curiosity did kill the cat.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Read the title of this posting... "Horrifying" I'd submit censorship is a bit less horrifying than that particular video. I love patronizing retards who seem to think that life should be at you full volume, constantly. Every piece of information, every detail has to be in their hands or the world is somehow cheating them. Knowing about something and having graphic knowledge of it are two different things. Yes I chose to watch it and now after watching it I think that there should have been some respon
Re: (Score:1)
Yes I chose to watch it and now after watching it I think that there should have been some responsibility taken to remove it.
You learned the wrong lesson from watching the beheading. What you should have taken away is a critical opinion of those who would support execution and practice it. If you found the execution offensive, you should have been motivated to some political action, such as writing to your local representive informing him/her of the event and what policy you want them to support in the future, and sending some of your money to groups that would help to stop similar events from happening again.
Next thing you know Youtube will allow rape videos to be submitted or torture videos. Is that what we want as a society?
Yes (if we replace
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't want to watch it, then don't. You don't get to use censorship to stop everyone else from seeing something you're offended by; that's 100% anti-freedom.
I don't like your comment. Therefore, no one else should be able to see it. But I'm sure you'll talk about how this is 100% different because of some arbitrary nonsense you spew forth. I can do the same, so don't waste your time.
Does it make us less human and desensitize us to future events? Yes.
Not only can you not prove that (I assure you, watching a video does not turn someone into a different species.), but i
Re: (Score:2)
"Toute nation a le gouvernement qu'elle mérite." - Joseph de Maistre
"Every nation gets the government it deserves."
Censorship may be abhorrent but it's not Horror. People who think they're free are basically not, so don't assume that to be true. If you want liberty then you'll have to fight to change the statis quo because no nation on earth is free. That means censorship is going to be a day to day occurrence, you're just more acutely aware of it now because of the Internet. Blue or Red pills awai
Re: (Score:2)
"Every nation gets the government it deserves."
I disagree that it's deserved. People may be apathetic and foolish, but I don't think it's moral to screw them over simply because of that. I would say, instead, that every nation gets the government it's willing to tolerate.
If you want liberty then you'll have to fight to change the statis quo because no nation on earth is free.
Obviously.
Re: (Score:2)
So you're saying people have a right to freedom and no censorship. Humm, get the UN to agree with it and you might have a case. Oh wait, there's that security council thingy.. It'll never happen.
Re: (Score:2)
So you're saying people have a right to freedom and no censorship.
I said that a few posts ago, so it's rather strange to hear you mentioning it now.
Humm, get the UN to agree with it and you might have a case.
I don't need the UN to agree with facts; facts are facts regardless of whether they agree. In the US, we have the first amendment. The government may ignore, and we should stop them from doing so, but we have it. Countries with government censorship do indeed need to put a stop to it, one way or another.
Taking responsibility for yourself (Score:2)
Yes I chose to watch it and now after watching it I think that there should have been some responsibility taken to remove it.
Or, you could take some responsibility for the bad choice you made. Nobody put a gun to your head and forced you to watch it. Your complaint is the equivalent of a child who wants to ban all use of fire after having burnt himself despite being warned of its dangers.
I also like the way you passed the buck to that mythical "somebody" who you say should have done something about the video. Why don't you do something about it yourself? Besides raging on the internet?
It's shocking how little you value your free
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For example, this week I saw a video of a beheading. Now after watching it I probably wish that somebody had filtered that for me.
If it makes you feel any better, unless you watched a completely different video than I did (something other the what has been in the news recently), you didn't see a beheading. Did you see the blood spurt/drain out as the carotid/jugular were severed? Did you see the disarticulation of the spine? Those weren't in any version of the video I saw. It moves from a guy making a sawing motion with a knife in front of a guy throat, to a picture of the disembodied head sitting atop the body.
That's not to say t
Re: (Score:2)
yeah same here, so the sight of a dismembered head isn't disgusting to you? to me gushing blood, dismembered heads is bad enough. My mind can easily extrapolate the other details.
Book burning... (Score:3, Interesting)
... is the cornerstone of decadence.
It actually started with the burning of the great library of Alexandria and the murder of Hypathia at the start of an era we call the Dark Ages when Christianity was born. Centuries of a murderous, and genocidal campaign was untaken to erase specific information from human knowledge and history.
I find it odd to read an article shared on /. starting with "Imagine a world where the book burners had won."
The myths of Alexandria (Score:4, Informative)
It actually started with the burning of the great library of Alexandria and the murder of Hypathia at the start of an era we call the Dark Ages when Christianity was born.
Although there is a mythology of the burning of the Library at Alexandria, the library may have suffered several fires or acts of destruction over many years. Possible occasions for the partial or complete destruction of the Library of Alexandria include a fire set by Julius Caesar in 48 BC, an attack by Aurelian in the A.D. 270s, the decree of Coptic Pope Theophilus in A.D. 391, and the decree of the second caliph Omar ibn Al-khattab in A.D. 640.
It's contents were largely lost during the taking of the city by the Emperor Aurelian (A.D. 270-275), who was suppressing a revolt by Queen Zenobia of Palmyra. During the course of the fighting, the areas of the city in which the main library was located were damaged. Some sources claim that the smaller library located at the Serapeum survived, though Ammianus Marcellinus wrote of the library in the Serapeum temple as a thing of the past, destroyed when Caesar sacked Alexandria.
Library of Alexandria [wikipedia.org]
According to the only contemporary source, Hypatia was murdered [370 AD] by a Christian mob after being accused of exacerbating a conflict between two prominent figures in Alexandria: the governor Orestes and the Bishop of Alexandria. Kathleen Wider proposes that the murder of Hypatia marked the end of Classical antiquity, and Stephen Greenblatt observes that her murder "effectively marked the downfall of Alexandrian intellectual life". On the other hand, Maria Dzielska and Christian Wildberg note that Hellenistic philosophy continued to flourish in the 5th and 6th centuries, and perhaps until the age of Justinian.
Hypatia [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Nice. Thanks for sharing.
Re: (Score:3)
Look up 'the Nicean Council'. They are the ones that edited the new testament and had the unapproved/old version gospels burned. About 300AD IIRC.
Re: (Score:2)
That is a false statement. They weren't out to destroy all information, just the unapproved kind. The Holy Roman Empire was a central authority that started the book burning. Don't even get started on the forced conversions they perpetrated.
Recall the 'Dunces' were a well respected 'dark age' catholic intellectual community. They believed all knowle
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the thoughtful post.
Christianity definitely didn't start at 0 AD. If wikipedia serves, started at about 300 AD when Constantine started recognizing the group. There was that a council of scholars (I believe known as The Councils of Nicaea) that decided on what should be put into the compilation we know as the bible then the erection of the first church in 380AD.
Hypathia, the respected but troublesome figure, was murdered around 415AD, 35 years later. The Dark ages starting about a hundred yea
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Christianity was around before 300AD, but the record is poor because they were just another weird cult - and there were plenty of those around. It may well have started in exactly the manner Christians claim: As a cult of personality built around one charismatic individual in the vicinity of Jerusalem in the first century. That information has been lost to history. The Council of Nicaea wasn't the birth of Christianity, but the point at which the previously-pagan Roman empire began to adopt it - a process t
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the thoughtful post.
Christianity definitely didn't start at 0 AD. If wikipedia serves, started at about 300 AD when Constantine started recognizing the group.
Um... no. You're probably thinking of Roman Catholicism, the state religion of Rome instituted by Constantine in 313AD.
Christianity started in the mid first century.
Re: (Score:1)
Well, have you any idea that book borning has been very long ago? Limiting information has been very common and also will be. But parties vary. Now some people in USA have heard something too much and USA is chasing Edward Snowden.
Why is Canada greyed out? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just don't look at Rob Ford. He's not even trying to disguise himself.
THE HORROR! THE HORROR!
Re: (Score:2)
Just don't look at Rob Ford. He's not even trying to disguise himself.
Well, at least he doesn't have a zipper on his forehead [wordpress.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Just wait, you'll see soon enough. ;-)
All I can say for now is ... Moosenado!
Censorception? (Score:1)
Irony (Score:2)
I tried viewing this site from my work, and the map was replaced by my corporate 'Ad Blocked' image.
Wow. Shriek much? (Score:2)
A Horrifying First World Problem (Score:3)
A world where people are held down and kept in line by oppressive regimes that restrict the free flow of information and bombard citizens with government-approved messages. Now stop imagining, because this horrifying world already exists..."
There are more things horrifying in this world than Internet censorship. It is an important topic, but it is one that deserve appropriate discussion, not geek uber-hoopla. So please spare us from the unnecessary histrionics.
If you need to rely on histrionics to make your point, then your point is irrelevant, or you are an idiot who cannot communicate properly, or a cheap entertainer, or an attention whore. Or a combination of them all.
Stop being such a drama queen. (Score:5, Interesting)
"Imagine a world in which the book burners had won"
Please. "Horrifying"?
The OP pimps itself breathlessly as "This interactive map of global Internet censorship is the most important thing youâ(TM)ll see today" - yes, it's about as important (and surprising) as the sun coming up in the East.
The facts are that
a) the ubiquitous availability of information is a relatively new thing. Public libraries didn't even really exist until the latter 19th/E20th centuries. The internet is less than a generation old.
b) governments and power structures have controlled such information throughout the span of human history.
The panicked tone of the article implies that this is worse than ever, which is patently histrionic bullshit. Even in these heavily censored countries, these people have access to information that they NEVER would have had before.
I'm not even 100% convinced that the ideal of universal access to information is an unalloyed good. Certainly, from the POV of a midwestern, middle class educated individual I *assume* that the net result of having more information is beneficial - but I can certainly see that there are negative aspects to "everything open", such as people who clearly don't understand basic science drawing conclusions from unfiltered scientific data. Or statistics? How many people are easily manipulated by presentations of statistics that they don't even understand? Again, my gut tells me that the "net" is a benefit, but I can't say I'm certain.
Again, as a small-l liberal, I believe that information and communication is probably good in the long run; even the small trickles of illumination sneaking into those heavily censored places suggests to me that their ability to keep their people in ignorance will eventually expire. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but eventually.
A glass 95% empty is still a crapton better than no glass at all.
Re: (Score:3)
such as people who clearly don't understand basic science drawing conclusions from unfiltered scientific data.
Those people come to their predetermined conclusions with or without the the raw data, but removing restrictions on distribution of data does help real researchers.
Or statistics? How many people are easily manipulated by presentations of statistics that they don't even understand?
Again those presenters would be manipulating opinion with or without openly available data.The fact that the statistics are openly available is the only chance people have to prove them wrong.
So neither of the examples of negative aspects are actually negative. At best the open information gives other groups the opportunity to debunk the lies and
Re:Stop being such a drama queen. (Score:5, Insightful)
a) the ubiquitous availability of information is a relatively new thing. Public libraries didn't even really exist until the latter 19th/E20th centuries. The internet is less than a generation old.
b) governments and power structures have controlled such information throughout the span of human history.
I'm not even 100% convinced that the ideal of universal access to information is an unalloyed good.
Nothing is pure good. Fortunately that's not the standard for good. Unfettered access to the Internet merely has to be better than government censorship of the internet. That's the real choice, not internet vs no internet. Unfettered access to information is one the founding principles of Democracy. Western nations have embraced this idea for around 200 years. Developing nations that aren't particularly democratic or are newly democratic are having to come to grips with this fact.
A country where the Government gets to censor what we see and hear can't function as a democracy. Democracy relies on the citizens being able to freely communicate. That can't happen under censorship. In the US the founding fathers reconized this because they were subject to a government that tried to control them. That's why the created the first amendment, and why other countries equally recongized this basic fact of a functioning democracy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A country where the Government gets to censor what we see and hear can't function as a democracy. Democracy relies on the citizens being able to freely communicate. That can't happen under censorship.
Removal of anonymity (ubiquitous surveillance) is just as much of a problem to a democratic form of government as censorship.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not even 100% convinced that the ideal of universal access to information is an unalloyed good
That's actually an interesting question, I've always assumed that it is. That being said, I've always assumed the information is correct or can be verified correct, or can be eventually demonstrated as incorrect and then repaired.
Remember the pseudo-joke about how "unwritten laws are the worst to change, because they're not written down in any one place?" Rumors and hearsay are hard to correct, because maybe they're right, maybe they're only partially right, maybe they were right once but not now, mayb
Map is worthless if you leave off major offenders (Score:1)
when the gov. made the internet it was free (Score:1)
Hmmmm.
my access was censored! (Score:2)
Looking at the wrong culprits (Score:3)
Book Burners Have Always Won (Score:2)
History is written by the victors.
Slow hand clap (Score:2)
The statistics for the UK from the website:
And yet on the map graphics it's shown as a bright white 'Free', not 'Partly Free'.
Not quite, mate. [gizmodo.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
Net Neutrality (Score:1)
What map? (Score:1)
The future is already here? Not yet. (Score:2)
City Protective Services (CPS) law enforcement officer Kiera Cameron (Rachel Nichols) lives a quiet, normal life with her husband and son in 2077-era Vancouver. Under the corporatocratic and oligarchic dystopia of the North American Union and its "Corporate Congress", life goes on in apparent freedom under a technologically-advanced high-surveillance police state.
When a group of self-proclaimed freedom fighters known as "Liber8" escape execution by fleeing to the year 2012, Kiera is involuntarily transported with them into the past. Joining with Detective Carlos Fonnegra (Victor Webster) and the Vancouver Police Department, and enlisting the help of teen computer genius Alec Sadler (Erik Knudsen), Kiera works to track down and thwart Edouard Kagame (Tony Amendola) and his followers in the present day while concealing her identity as a time-traveler from the future.
we all know how certain places censor everything. This is why the MPAA and RIAA need to put on a leash at the least because that story above is our future if we don't. And we need no map of the dark censor laden areas of the world to do it.
Re: (Score:3)
Based on how little world or local news of importance is available through online news outlets North America should be colored crimson red.
There are all sorts of reputable news outlets in North America covering world news well. Also, sites outside of North America are accessible (not blocked) from North America.
Re: (Score:2)
X is worse than Y != Y is not bad. "first world problems" is a phrase used by fools who don't understand simple logic. Problems are problems, no matter how small.
Re: (Score:1)
Ah yes, that's right. There were absolutely no voices of criticism or opposition to all that "disinformation," because the US government brutally cracked down on protests and citizens.
I remember the Zucotti Square massacre as if it was only yesterday! Those brave heroes died at the hands of a repressive government bent on dominating and controlling all aspects of thought and information that citizens are exposed to.
Seriously, bro - there is a WORLD of difference between "some people in power made misleadi
Re: Map it's not very accurate (Score:1)
What country?
Re: (Score:2)
Not OP, but my country (France) is listed as white and has blocked a bunch of websites, at least for copyright and political reasons.
Re: Why wouldnÃ...£t we believe t (Score:1)
The internet was not invented for mass media