I have a GAB account, @Hershblogger, but I don’t use it a lot. Just don’t remember to, and AFAIK there’s no API to connect it to new posts.
Your trash disposal habits might now require a small EMP generator before you can safely throw away a lightbulb.
Recycling is definitely contraindicated without that EMP. Or a 2 pound sledge (wear eye-protection).
The people scanning the conveyor belt to sort actual trash out of the recycling stream could quickly “monetize” burned out lightbulbs without even the bother of diving into a dumpster, and without any computer skills whatever.
I am quite sure this does not apply only to IoT lightbulbs.
The future is stupid, but not stupider than LIFX management. They sell you electronic security breachers so you can implant them yourself. Which would make you the stupidest.
The engineers at LIFX did not encrypt the RSA key on their “smart” lightbulbs, so an enterprising garbage collector who’d ‘learned to code’ could have root access to your home WiFi because you threw one away.
It isn’t believable that the engineers at LIFX failed to understand this problem.
Therefore, it wasn’t the engineers who decided to ship these Trojan Horses.
Therefore, protestation from LIFX that they’ve cleaned up their act is incredible.
That is, it is as credible as Google and Facebook when they claim they protect your privacy – even though selling it is how they prosper.
This is not to say LIFX planned to harvest your WiFi passwords. It is to say they just didn’t give a shit.
I can’t wait until lightbulbs speak like HAL… I wonder if you can get HAL’s voice on Alexa or Google Home?
“Sorry, I can’t do that _your name here_.”
Sadly, most Millennials wouldn’t get the reference, not having seen 2001: A Space Odyessy. I’m sure they are installing these bulbs in their parent’s basements.
In the United States, we just let Google and Facebook track us. With Twitter brownshirts and the Maim Scream Media™ as the enforcers.
On the whole, the Chicoms are likely fairer, and they’re certainly more circumspect.
See Mark Steyn: The Drumbeat of the Mob
I don’t much like Donald Trump, but, sorry, he’s not the problem.
Talk about toxic personalities and hate speech… you collectivists seriously need a privilege check.
I see some “conservatives” telling the Covington boys, “Don’t wear MAGA hats so you can avoid confrontation.”
That is teaching the wrong lesson on so many levels it’s sickening.
But let’s only deal with the free speech implication:
“Your freedom of speech is subservient to confrontational, subjective, racist, fake, hate-filled, collectivist-mob tropes. Even if you don’t say anything. And even if you maintain a calm demeanor.
You should cover your face and kneel, or some adults might Tweet threats to kill you and your family based on their subjective interpretation of your state of mind in a video deceptively edited by people who hate you on sight.”
And an addendum from their own school leadership:
“We not only won’t help, but we’ll castigate you. Because we have accepted that white males have their own peculiar, indelible original sins.”
And what were the Black Hebrew’s chants if not “hate speech?”
And, sorry, I can’t just leave it at free speech. One other implication is, “Dressing like that is ‘asking for it’.” Well, I guess that’s free speech, too.
And some you will.
Email received from GAB. Don’t use it much, but I’m glad they’re there.
Gab Community Members,
Gab.com operates according to one principal rule: if speech is allowed under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and our User Guidelines, it is allowed on our site. This is because, per Sir Stephen Sedley in the seminal English free speech case DPP v. Redmond-Bate, “freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having.”
We are proud to have recently met our fundraising goal of $1.07m raised directly from The People. We have made considerable progress this month making Gab the home of free speech, free association, and the free market online. This includes an update to our mute system that gives more control to individual users to shape their own experience. Unfortunately we still have not been able to get a new payment processor, although we are accepting checks to our PO Box and will be integrating bitcoin as a payment option shortly.
On a daily basis, our company uses the protection afforded by the First Amendment, federal data privacy law, and American global hegemony to provide a utility for users all over the world, wheresoever they might be, to publish their innermost thoughts and engage in open dialogue without fear of recrimination from unfriendly and repressive governments. Put another way, we structure our affairs to afford all our users the full measure of due process rights available in the United States.
As a result, Gab is now the fastest-growing social media platform in the world. We have acquired over 800,000 users and new Gabbers are joining the site at a rate of nearly 100,000 a month from across the planet. Gab has over 10.6 million visits a month and is quickly becoming a home for those who wish to think, speak, and express themselves freely.
One unintended consequence of our moderation policy is that Gab has attracted, shall we say, a colorful user base. Most if not all of the team, from the CEO down to our external contractors and service providers, can find an enormous amount of content on the site which we each find morally or politically objectionable, even personally hateful.
However, we understand that adopting a moderation policy that mirrors the First Amendment will result in users of our site expressing views with which we disagree, including “the thought that we hate.” See Matal v. Tam, 582 U.S. ___ (2017). We do not, unlike virtually every other social media company in existence, think we have any right to try to change what our users think.
The mainstream media strongly implies that Gab’s provisioning of a forum for this speech runs the risk of encouraging expression “(escalating) from online speech to real-world action.” We dissent. Hateful speech may be found on every platform with millions of users, including Twitter and Facebook; Gab is not alone in this regard.
Furthermore, we actively monitor the site for speech that crosses the line from the merely outrageous into the truly threatening or unlawful. Where criminal activity is brought to our attention, we act swiftly to curtail it and, where possible, cooperate with law enforcement to ensure our users’ safety – real, physical, safety, not wishy-washy millennial “safe space” safety – is secured.
When one creates a space where controversial speech is permitted, controversial speech should be expected. This is only news for anyone who doesn’t understand what “free speech” actually means. And today, Gab stands as the largest social network in the world that willing to take the heat involved in standing by this oldest and most classically liberal principle of liberal democracy.
Much has been made recently of social media companies’ moderation policies seeking to strike balances between civility and liberty. Civility-oriented moderation strategies are referred to as the “European tradition” and liberty-oriented strategies are referred to as the “American tradition.”
We follow the American tradition to the letter. We will continue to do so as long as the company exists.
If you think Big Social Media is strangling free speech, or you’re just fed up with being the product, or you are realizing what privacy you’re giving up by using them, or you’re just tired of them lying about all of that; you might find this article of interest.
I once used Twitter because it would automatically Tweet new blog posts, but I wasn’t happy with their filtering bias, shadow-banning and manipulation of their “check marks”. So I left.
I joined an alternative to Twitter, Gab (when they were still in Beta), because of their commitment to free speech. I’ve made maybe 10 posts, mostly references to my blog. There are people on Gab with whom I do not wish to associate, but where on the Internet isn’t that the case? You don’t have to follow them, or let them follow you.
Most people had never heard of Gab, used by the person who killed 11 people at a Pittsburgh synagogue, until yesterday. Now it’s under attack because of this mad man’s actions.
Payment processors PayPal and Stripe, and hosting company Joyent are pulling the plug on Gab.
I never paid for Gab’s “Pro” service, but I just did it now. Visa still works. Whether my payment gets through to Gab any time soon is questionable at this point, but they will probably need funds to sue the payment companies and the hosting company.
Payment and hosting companies’ job is not to suppress legal commerce, nor to decide what legal business is conducted on their servers. They have the right to determine who their customers are, and apply Terms of Service, but not arbitrarily. This incident seems like restraint of trade.
It is worth noting that Louis Farrakhan is still on Twitter and able to describe Jews as “termites.” He’s hardly the only anti-Semite there. The guy who was just arrested for sending bombs threatened people on Twitter. Every shooter I can recall had a Facebook page – the MSM mined them for stories, as did police. How is Gab different?
Well, it didn’t take long for Gab to find a new hosting provider. It seems like this story could be challenging left-wing control of speech. Cue George Gilder: Life After Google just moved to the top of my queue.
I just received this from Gab:
G A B
Gab.com’s policy on terrorism and violence have always been very clear: we a have zero tolerance for it. Gab unequivocally disavows and condemns all acts of terrorism and violence. This has always been our policy. We are saddened and disgusted by the news of violence in Pittsburgh and are keeping the families and friends of all victims in our thoughts and prayers.
We refuse to be defined by the media’s narratives about Gab and our community. Gab’s mission is very simple: to defend free expression and individual liberty online for all people. Social media often brings out the best and the worst of humanity. From live streamed murders on Facebook, to threats of violence by bombing suspect Cesar Sayoc Jr. that went unaddressed by Twitter, and more. Criminals and criminal behavior exist on every social media platform.
Shortly after the attack, Gab was alerted to a user profile of the alleged Tree of Life Synagogue shooter. The account was verified and matched the name of the alleged shooter’s name, which was mentioned on police scanners. This person also had accounts on other social networks.
Gab took swift and proactive action to contact law enforcement immediately. We first backed up all user data from the account and then proceeded to suspend the account. We then contacted the FBI and made them aware of this account and the user data in our possession. We are ready and willing to work with law enforcement to see to it that justice is served.
We have nothing but love for all people and freedom. We have consistently disavowed all violence. Free speech is crucial for the prevention of violence. If people can not express themselves through words, they will do so through violence. No one wants that. No one.
Our user guidelines state:
Threats and Terrorism:
Users are prohibited from calling for the acts of violence against others, promoting or engaging in self-harm, and/or acts of cruelty, threatening language or behaviour that clearly, directly and incontrovertibly infringes on the safety of another user or individual(s). We may also report the user(s) to local and/or federal law enforcement, as per the advice of our legal counsel.
Our privacy agreement state:
Information Disclosed for Our Protection and the Protection of Others.
We cooperate with government and law enforcement officials or private parties to enforce and comply with the law. We may disclose any information about you to government or law enforcement officials or private parties as we, in our sole discretion, believe necessary or appropriate: (i) to respond to claims, legal process (including subpoenas); (ii) to protect our property, rights and safety and the property, rights and safety of a third party or the public in general; and (iii) to stop any activity that we consider illegal or legally actionable activity.
Thanks and remember to speak freely!
You may wish to show some support for Gab.
Brin talks about the typical mentality of Trump voters.He argues that those with ‘routine jobs’ were more likely to vote for Trump than those with ‘non-routine’ jobs – and said ‘boredom’ might explain the President’s popularity.
‘There’s actually a lot of historical precedent for boredom being a huge factor in vote choice,’ Brin told the crowd.
‘And actually in building extremism. We’ve done a lot of work on extremism that shows a high correlation with boredom.’
‘Data suggests that boredom led to the rise of fascism and communism. It sort of sneaks up sometimes, really bad things.’
“The search engine, codenamed Dragonfly, was designed for Android devices, and would remove content deemed sensitive by China’s ruling Communist Party regime, such as information about political dissidents, free speech, democracy, human rights, and peaceful protest.”
I guess the difference between the US and China is the Chinese leaders are bored. They’re certainly deplorable, and the routine of operating their totalitarian social credit apparatus must get boring. Especially if you have the mentality of a typical Chinese Communist. Brin’s going to help them with that, but won’t automating the surveillance state make running it even more boring? Where’s the fun in having a computer assign people to re-education camps based on a search term they use?
One must wonder about Brin. On one hand, perhaps we should heed this aphorism from F. Scott Fitzgerald, “The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.” On the other hand, he seems to lack self-awareness.
IAC, Brin does not appear subject to the possibility of cognitive dissonance.
Perhaps George Orwell can explain it for us:
The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them… To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies—all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth
-Orwell, George (1949). Nineteen Eighty-Four. Martin Secker & Warburg Ltd, London, part 2, chapter 9, pp 220
Russia’s hidden hand in the Florida pipeline protests was extensive, according to sources familiar with the operations. At least eight Russian accounts, most tied to the troll farm known as the Internet Research Agency, sent at least 16 social media messages excoriating the Sabal Trail pipeline or retweeting messages from one of its most prominent opponents, a frequent guest on RT. The tweets were sent to a total of more than 40,000 followers as well as anyone else who saw them via hashtags.
This is just one example of Russian manipulation of useful Green idiots. The Russians do a lot of this in Canada, too.
If we’re worried about Russian election shenanigans, we should be equally concerned about this tampering. It’s gone on longer, involved more money, is intended to reduce US national security and divide Americans, while boosting Russian oil revenues and world-political influence.
This is a headline at CNET.com, a technology publication. I suppose they are able to take this view because they don’t publish articles about politics. Even then, considering ninety-six pages of regulation to be a “light touch” is idiotic.
Maybe someone should go count the number of pages in the Constitution. There are six. There are only forty-five words in the First Amendment.
CNET reports that under these regulations:
“…bloggers can enjoy the freedoms of traditional news organizations…”
This is by no means clear if it requires ninety-six pages to delineate, and in fact, seems highly unlikely. Where did the idea come from that exemptions granted to “traditional news organizations” are the standard for free speech? See “the press?” for some analysis the so-called “press exemption.”
We are also informed that:
“…one prominent advocate of Internet free speech said the rules are preferable over what could have happened”
Yep, there could have been a call for blogger internment camps, but we’re not ready for that yet. Whether these regulations remain “preferable” is an open question. One thing McCain-Feingold has accomplished is public acceptance of the anti-Constitutional chopping up of free speech into categories. Some speech is more equal than others.
Ninety-six pages of regulations are not meant to prevent future incursions into our liberties; they are stepping stones to more regulation. Once we get used to a bridle, we’ll soon see the saddle.
“A light touch?” The touch of a pickpocket is light, but when you buy a wallet that can be chained to your belt, he’ll have to step up to armed robbery. And he’ll blame it on you.
The FEC’s internal deliberations are taking place against an unusual backdrop of congressional action. Bloggers of all political stripes, many politicians and even FEC Chairman Michael Toner have thrown their support behind a proposal in Congress that would amend current law and largely immunize the Internet from election law.
An effort to do just that was defeated by Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives last November. In a second attempt to enact the same proposal, a House panel this month approved the bill again, but the release of the FEC rules could delay it indefinitely. (A similar measure is pending in the Senate.)
Emphasis mine. The Democrats want it delayed indefinitely.
Critics of a broad exemption–including the New York Times editorial board–say that excluding all Internet communications is a recipe for corruption, giving candidates the green light to coordinate unfettered soft-money online spending with corporations, labor unions and wealthy donors.
Emphasis mine. And excluding the New York Times from the regulations is a way to ensure what? Biased reporting masquerading as free speech?
The three Republican commissioners–including Smith, who’s now a law professor–had wanted to appeal the Internet-related sections. But because they couldn’t get even one of the three Democrats to go along with them and give them a majority, that didn’t happen and the FEC began the current proceeding.
“Freedom of speech on the Internet”, indeed. The point of McCain-Feingold was to keep the incumbent money trail secret. To the cheers of the Pew Trust, the New York Times and professional politicians, and with the acquiescence of George Bush and the support of the Supreme Court, that’s exactly what we’ve got.
What part of “Congress shall pass no law” don’t they understand?