Are Governments Denying Internet Access To Their Political Opponents? (technologyreview.com) 149
"Keeping your enemies offline can cripple their chances of overthrowing you," reports the MIT Technology Review. Slashdot reader schwit1 quotes their article:
Whether or not your ethnic group has political power is a crucial factor determining your access to the Internet, according to a new analysis. The effect varies from country to country, and is much less pronounced in democratic nations. But the study, published today in Science, suggests that besides censorship, another way national governments prevent opposing groups from organizing online is by denying them Internet access in the first place, says Nils Weidmann, a professor of political science at the University of Konstanz in Germany.
Researchers used a geolocation database to create a map showing subnetwork activity for a large volume of internet traffic, then compared it with geographic data for the world's ethnic groups. "They concluded that excluded groups had significantly lower access compared to the groups in power, and that this can't be explained by other economic or geographic factors (like living in rural vs. urban areas)... 'You don't have to censor if the opposition doesn't get access at all.' "
Researchers used a geolocation database to create a map showing subnetwork activity for a large volume of internet traffic, then compared it with geographic data for the world's ethnic groups. "They concluded that excluded groups had significantly lower access compared to the groups in power, and that this can't be explained by other economic or geographic factors (like living in rural vs. urban areas)... 'You don't have to censor if the opposition doesn't get access at all.' "
Don't know but Facebook and Twitter sure are (Score:2, Insightful)
Not to mention Hilary's campaign, who threatened a reporter with losing their job for noting that she looked "low energy" at an event.
Indoctrination (Score:2, Funny)
OK, citizens! Stand in a circle, join hands, and repeat after me:
Trump is wonderful, Kumbaya.
Trump is glorious, Kumbaya.
Trump is wonderful, Kumbaya.
Oh, Lord, Kumbaya!
Trump tells truth, Lord, Kumbaya.
Hill'ry always lies, Kumbaya.
Trump tells truth, Lord, Kumbaya.
Oh, Lord, Kumbaya!
Trump is healthy, Lord, Kumbaya.
Hill'ry's health is bad, Kumbaya.
Trump is healthy, Lord, Kumbaya.
Oh, Lord, Kumbaya!
Trump's not robbing me, Kumbaya.
Trump doesn't pump charitable and political donations to his own businesses, Kumbaya.
Re: Indoctrination (Score:1)
Oh man, you sure convinced me! I'm a #hillshill now!
Re: (Score:1)
Well at least, even you are not contesting or denying the fact that Hillary is a "warmongering corrupt elitist conwoman (a sick one too)".
Keep on tacitly admitting facts like that, by not contesting them, and you will eventually be cured of your Hillshill disease, enough to admit there is no one who fits description "corrupt fascist conmen", in presidential race.
Re: (Score:1)
How many rubles did you earn for your post?
less than what i got to hack crooked hillary's brain to make her faint today. or to dust pollen around her meetings last week to make her cough.
lol @ media guided delusions of hillshill
-
btw i see you are still not contesting or denying the fact that hillary is a "warmongering corrupt elitist conwoman (a sick one too)".
Re: (Score:2)
Kopeks, man, kopeks.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone who gets me to crack a smile first thing in the morning before the coffee's ready must be doing something right.
Out of mod points right now, but hope you'll accept this neat-O genuine imitation gold star in lieu thereof. And a fresh cuppa, if you're so inclined.
Re: (Score:2)
Try this on instead, "We Came, We Saw, He Died" https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]. Hillary Clinton.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
"I'm in fine health. *cough* *cough*
-- Hillary Clinton
Translation: I have pneumonia.
What excuses tomorrow may bring (Score:5, Insightful)
I've noticed that Hillary has a pattern of using the "most minimal" excuse that will get her by.
She was in great health until she had a 4 minute 22 second coughing fit, then it's "I have been talking non-stop for weeks, but I'm OK now. [washingtonpost.com]"
She was fine until she had to leave the 9/11 memorial, then it's "I was feeling a little overheated, but I'm all right now".
That worked until the video of her collapsing [youtube.com] as she's put into a van, then it's "I have pneumonia, but it's all right".
This tracks with other investigation into her actions, including the E-mail [nationalreview.com] scandal:
If the past is any prediction of the future, we'll have to wait a couple of months to find out if she was really sick or not.
Re: (Score:1)
http://www.vanityfair.com/news... [vanityfair.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Apparently they passed muster with the IRS. What else do you to know?
Re: (Score:1)
If they "passed muster with the IRS" then why is he using the fact that he's being audited as an excuse to not release the returns?
And what about all the years that preceded the audit? What is he hiding? Even Richard Nixon released his tax returns.
Re: (Score:3)
Why should he release them? Romney did, and all it bought him was a lot of people like you complaining that he took every available deduction he could (otherwise known as "obeying the law"). If he's hiding anything improper, presumably the IRS will deal with him.
Given that the lawful authorities have found nothing to squawk about, I don't see his tax returns as being anyone else's business. What do think is in them that's germane to his ability to execute his official duties as president?
Re: (Score:2)
Because all presidential and vice-presidential candidates release their tax records. Even Mike Pence knew enough to keep with tradition.
If Romney (and, I assume Trump) is ashamed of how they do their taxes, then it's even more reason that there should be disclosure.
Re: (Score:3)
Why aren't everyone's tax records public to begin with?
Re: (Score:2)
Why should they be? Taxes reveal a lot about how a person lives. That's none of your business.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. (Swedish resident here.)
The health rumor catapult (Score:5, Insightful)
Looking at the headlines over time of Hillary leaving the 9/11 event is pretty interesting.
A couple of hours ago, it was "Hillary has pneumonia".
Then it was "doctors diagnosed Hillary with pneumonia".
Then it was "doctors diagnosed Hillary with pneumonia well before the 9/11 ceremony". (On Friday, apparently).
Now it's Hillary Clinton's Doctor Says Pneumonia Led to Abrupt Exit From 9/11 Event [nytimes.com].
(If you've ever studied creative writing, note the slow creep away from active voice and into the passive. That last one doesn't even connect Hillary with pneumonia directly - to read the headline, you might think that she left to comfort someone *else* who has pneumonia.)
As someone who's had pneumonia, I can well believe that she might faint after standing around for 90 minutes on a hot afternoon.
As someone who tries to look beyond the headlines, it would seem that IF she was diagnosed on Friday it would have been better to announce it at that time. All this back-filling and back-pedaling after the fact makes it look like she's hiding something more serious.
Here I was ready to denounce the Hillary health rumors as being unfounded, and this turns up.
She put the issue of her health into a catapult and fired it into public view, all on her ownsome.
Re: (Score:1)
Going to pay respects at a 9/11 memorial despite a case of pneumonia sounds pretty bad-ass, now that you mention it. Donald Trump evaded the draft saying he has a "bone spur" in his heel, which he says has since spontaneously healed.
Note: bone spurs do not spontaneously heal.
I am not a fan of Hillary Clinton, but I can't think of any medical condition (including schizophrenia or a medically-induced coma) that would make her a worse choice than Donald Trump.
Re: (Score:1)
Note: bone spurs do not spontaneously heal.
Yes they do. That is the most common ailment after wisdom teeth removal.
Most common treatment method: Wait until it wears down on it's own.
Re: (Score:2)
Heel spurs will not go away on their own. They do not "wear down".
Re: (Score:2)
No, you won't find a single post of me singing Hillary Clinton's praises. At best, I'll point out that compared to Donald Trump she's Winston fucking Churchill, but Donald Trump is about as low a standard for presidential candidates as you could set. Sad! Compared to him, the corpse of Rutherford B Hays would be a better cho
Re: The health rumor catapult (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not about her health, it's her dishonesty in acknowledging it, and her bullying intimidation of anyone who refuses to accept her party line as gospel truth.
The problem is, Trump being a blowhard doesn't make Hillary less of a mafia boss.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Because I'm with Matthew 7 3:5 on this one:
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
I've seen this one before. [disquscdn.com]
I just hope the old battle-axe doesn't croak before Trump has the opportunity to trounce her. The donks might actually replace her with someone who isn't entirely vomit inducing.
Re: (Score:2)
The donks might actually replace her with someone who isn't entirely vomit inducing.
Most likely that would be Tim Kaine. If she dies before the election, the party can select a replacement, most likely Tim. If she dies between her election, and being sworn in, then it would automatically be Tim. The rules [wikipedia.org] are not entirely clear, but this is how they are currently interpreted.
Personal opinion: I would prefer Tim Kaine over either Hillary or Donald. It is pathetic that someone like him cannot win in our dysfunctional primary system.
Re: (Score:2)
The donks might actually replace her with someone who isn't entirely vomit inducing.
And that would be a terrible thing.
Re: (Score:1)
Not to mention Hilary's campaign, who threatened a reporter with losing their job for noting that she looked "low energy" at an event.
Got a citation for that? Frankly, it sounds more like something Trump would do, but I could be wrong. Hence the request for a citation.
Re:Don't know but Facebook and Twitter sure are (Score:5, Informative)
Common sense, but nice to see proof (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
So if you haven't read it either, how do you know it's a "good" study? It seems like you've decided to label it a "good" study because it agrees with your pre-establishe
Some digging... (Score:2)
Try here. [sciencemag...igital.org] For the supplementary material go here. [sciencemag.org]
Can't get the excerpt page but the main part is there, including their methodology. Which is flawed. /24 subnets and geolocation as a measurement of internet penetration in a country.
It's based on this study. [uni-konstanz.de]
Which uses the number of unique
No problem in that. Referenced study shows that there are pretty high correlations on both national and subnational level.
The problem with the original study (one this slashdot story is about) is where it claims to "show tha
Re: (Score:2)
I always appreciate when a good study establishes something that you assumed is the case. This also means that people who disagree with the idea of disenfranchisement now have evidence that it is a very real force in the world.
What I assume is the case, having worked with it, is that the GeoIP database is hopelessly inaccurate and can only be used in a very coarse-grained way with lots of fudging. For example, in Brazil the GeoIP databases usually omit details of city or region and all you have is 'somewhere in Brazil'.
Not like here (Score:5, Insightful)
Here in America, the superior country, we would NEVER have the government censor the internet of opinions we don't like. Instead, we simply have our good buddies/donors Facebook and Twitter do it for us.
Re:Libertarians (Score:4, Interesting)
So, no, stop believing what was spoon fed to you. And read them for yourselves. If I could read, Hegel, Marx, Lenin, and underdevelopment theorists you can read von Mises and listen to a few Milton Friedman youtube videos.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Here in America, the superior country, we would NEVER have the government censor the internet of opinions we don't like. Instead, we simply have our good buddies/donors Facebook and Twitter do it for us.
Check out voter registration... If you are in a majority Hispanic or Black area you may find that you have to go to some lengths and travel some distance to get a drivers licence renewed.
I'n shocked (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Third world keeps on third worldin' (Score:5, Insightful)
I know it's /. and all (Score:5, Insightful)
"They concluded that excluded groups had significantly lower access compared to the groups in power, and that this can't be explained by other economic or geographic factors (like living in rural vs. urban areas)..."
Institutionalized racism is used by _all_ of humanity to segment the population so that the ruling class can maintain control. How the hell else is 1% of the population going to grab 60-90% of the wealth and get away with it?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No it isn't.
No, it isn't.
Are you stoned, or are you naturally just that silly?
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody's talked about "gassing the 1%" except you.
Perhaps you should stop projecting your death-camp fantasies onto others who may just possibly not share them? Thanks!
Re: (Score:2)
You are a fucking white male! Your opinion is invalid.
Your rights end where my feelings begin!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Third world keeps on third worldin' (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can we turn this against SJWs? Having people like Anita Sarkeesian blocked from accessing the Internet would amazing?
Find a way to get them registered as a sex offender?
Re: (Score:2)
Also of interest is Google shutting down sites they do not agree with by denying all advertising to them.
Just taking away advertising is not "shutting down sites they do not agree with". And as we saw with Arab Spring, it doesn't matter. They had internet access, they had an uprising for change that, thanks to the Internet, propagated to many countries, and now they're worse off if anything. Same thing with the protests against the 1% in New York. The internet might let you organize stuff, but the stuff you organize on the internet doesn't change squat. The 1% see it as a way to let the proles let off steam wi
Re: (Score:2)
I hope, with your extreme paranoia, that you experience a fatal accident in the coming minutes. Just for you, it can be a black helicopter crashing into your face.
Hopefully they are... (Score:1)
Hopefully they are blocking Trump, because no one likes a troll.
Re: (Score:1)
Yep, just like how Romney was gonna win in 2012.
Re: (Score:1)
Go back to sleep grandma, Trump isn't your boogieman.
Re: (Score:2)
Your question makes it clear you've no idea at all how this site operates [slashdot.org]. (Or perhaps you're just trolling, but I've provided a link in any case.)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course it's unfair we can't watch Netflix or YouTube, but that isn't preventing us from participating in text discussions like this.
"I couldn't read the featured article because it was a video, and a request for a transcript went unanswered." That prevents people from participating.
This is Hillary's Agenda (Score:5, Insightful)
In "the good ole days before the internet", the MSM (Main Stream Media) controlled the news. The government needed a dozen people on their rolodex, and embarressing stories could be shut down. E.g. John F Kennedy was screwing women all over the place, and Bill Clinton would almost be a saint in comparison. But the MSM kept quiet, and it wasn't until much later that JFK's philandering became known.
Bill Clinton realized by 1995, that the internet had the potential to democratize the news and bypass the gatekeepers. "Moreover, it allows an extraordinary amount of unregulated data and information to be located in one area and available to all," http://www.breitbart.com/big-j... [breitbart.com]
In 1998, his worst fears came true. Clinton's MSM buddies at Newsweek spiked (i.e. killed) a bombshell of a story about Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. But a lowly store clerk with a modem (i.e. Matt Drudge) published the story on his site. Hillary was whining about there not being any "gatekeepers" on the internet http://www.freerepublic.com/fo... [freerepublic.com]
Fast-forward to the current election campaign, and the Democrats are openly talking about shutting down the Breitbart website http://dailycaller.com/2016/08... [dailycaller.com]
Do you really want Hillary in charge?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Your complaint is highly amusing since you ignore how Trump wants to abuse libel laws to shut down reporting he doesn't like.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/... [politico.com]
So, yes, if I have to choose I would pick Hillary over Herr Trump.
Re: (Score:1)
Off topic mod? LOL, did some Trump supporter get his panties all in a wad?
Re: (Score:3)
Your complaint is highly amusing since you ignore how Trump wants to abuse libel laws to shut down reporting he doesn't like.
So, yes, if I have to choose I would pick Hillary over Herr Trump.
You are I hope aware that the largest specific reason that the news media is so fucked up in the USA today is Bill Clinton. He signed the law that blew away our protection from one company owning all the media outlets in one town. The truth is that Trump is just a spoiler for Clinton, and that he is simply another pro-corporate candidate. You can ignore everything he has to say. If he accidentally became president, it would be basically indistinguishable from a Clinton presidency.
Re: (Score:2)
Er, are you referring to Bill C or Hillary C here? Your context is ambiguous.
Only one of them is in the presidential "race" with Trump right now, so it's pretty obvious from context. That you have to ask, though, either says something frightening about you, or about this election.
Re: (Score:2)
I initially read the whole post as Bill C, and was confused since Bill was a pretty good president in our view.
Alas, he was not a good president. He was a corporate whore and did just as he was instructed.
Re: (Score:2)
The "loss" of Breitbart would be a net gain for the Internet.
Re: (Score:1)
Do you really want Hillary in charge?
The prudent course of action would be to choose a person who will be guided by a certain amount of rationality and not blinded by their own self-importance, so I guess the answer is "yes". I'm sure she isn't a saint, but who is? Politics is a dirty game, and having a naive idealist at the helm is probably not what the world needs; nor do we need somebody who is obscessed with his own "greatness" and can't stop bragging about achievements that in his own mind are incredible (but seem a bit silly to most othe
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, no, your aren't calling for censorship, no you'd never do that. You just want responsibility where your political opponents aren't allowed to speak.
I realise that nothing I say will ever change your mind, which is sad, but for the benefit of those who haven't completely closed their ears and eyes, I think I have to respond; somebody needs to stand up against this kind of stupid nonsense, whose only arguments come in the form of bullying. Let''s start with the word "Censorship" - that is when the government or similar decides whether you are allowed to say things or not; I'm not calling for that - I think this is already clear to those that are willing
Re: (Score:2)
> How many rubles did you earn for that post?
Please cite with specificity any falsehoods in my post. Namecalling is not a valid argument.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How does Trump want free speech? Trump wants to rewrite libel laws so he can sue news outlets he disagrees with under the guise of "false reporting" (aka quoting his statements that embarrass him).
is facebook? is reddit? is twitter? is youtube? (Score:1)
What do you think. If you have a platform and you aren't dedicated to civil liberties and free speech, then you no-platform your opponents, no questions asked.
Ask any college conservative.
If you want free speech, then be prepared to seize it, because fascists of all stripes aren't going to give it to you.
ethnic conflict template just selling papers (Score:1)
The more the DNC can say 'We will protect your civil rights based on your ethnicity' (some ethnicities excluded), the more the DNC profits.
Ethnic conflict was supposed to get better under Obama, but he has to dole out to the DNC and the media and so it is far worse with the BLC/police conflict on the verge of civil war.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
bullshit. some of the poorest people work their asses off and have nothing to show for it. look at mexican immigrant workers, they work harder than anyone in the fields and make very little money compared to the high paying cushy jobs where people sit on their asses and tell others what to do.
Re: (Score:2)
Even then, you aren't - and shouldn't be - paid for how hard you work. You're paid for the value of what your work does. Engineers (generally) don't lift things all day, but they create very useful things and spent years of their life learning how to do that. That's what they're paid for.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I do understand your frustration. I also seem to have max karma, but now I'm not only not appreciated with the ad blocking toggle being useles, but I have "promoted" articles.
Re: (Score:1)
Hijacked redirects aren't happening on my iPhone or my PC.
We are not hearing dozens/hundreds of complaints about this from our normally vocal Slashdot posters.
The logical conclusion is that the problem is something at your end.
Re: (Score:2)
I browse Slashdot on mobile all the time, don't have an ad-blocker installed on either of my devices, and this has never happened to me.