/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

They used to do this thing where they just get a bunch of bots and shills to create the illusion that everyone thinks a certain way.

It's sort of the thing that Noam talks about: the ruling class defines firmly what the boundaries of allowed discussion are, but everything within those boundaries is very open and allowed.

You can actually go on reddit and see the current state department meta of the day, based on how many out-of-place posts there are about something topical and political on an our of place subreddit like /r/pics.

We've seen this with the "Uyghur genocide" they invented, Covid19 "antivaxxers", Russian orcs and Ukraine, and most recently they are trying to gaslight everyone into thinking that the fascists don't currently hold office with "Trump personally bad".

But they're over-doing it. People are starting to realize this. Picrel is a thread on the front-page calling this out.

So two things:

>The materialist reason for that is, that their media production could neither match the quantity of output nor the level of technical sophistication of western media production.

Agreed 100% but also since bourgeoisie dictatorships have a ruling class they can tap into the long history of various ruling class tactics that were developped to control their population (ie Machiavellian type of shit shit). And since they are very aware of their class position they know that using blatant censorship and authoritarianism is not as good of a strategy as psyops type of shit like indoctrination by full control of media, spreading ideological over materialist thought and all the other ways of gaslighting and manufacturing consent that we're used to seeing.

Of course with media technologically developing like you said, it's becoming very difficult to hide the high crimes of capitalist states. And I actually firmly believe that tiktok is accelerating this greatly. It's the most popular social media app by miles. 70% of insta grams have a tiktok watermark. Even if tiktok is still censored to shit, and has obvious ties with the state department, it's very nature of face-to-face communication makes it much more difficult to manipulate talking points. Even in it's cucked version I think it is accelerating the pace at which westerner's are becoming disillusioned with the total propaganda apparatus they live inside of.

Which is exactly why they want to BAN tiktok in the US. Which actually in turn undermines this soft and subtle way they've been doing things in the past.

Semi related.

We are hosting the TikTok appeals court hearing and arguments on leftychan.

https://tv.leftychan.net/r/HappeningsviaKlash

>The west is ramping up attempts at censorship. Ranging from deleting content up to attacking the people that make it, as well as attacking capitalists that own means of dissemination. The West has/had a relatively open media ecosystem as well as very high production media quality, and that is the combined reason why it's media structures have absolutely dominated the world.
Talking of which another bunch of yootube channels just got nuked.

https://youtu.be/9rFBbRmeiJ4
Interesting talk on that.

>>484588
>Talking of which another bunch of yootube channels just got nuked.
the censorship sucks, it's likely also going to hurt youtube. This shit will over time erode their dominant position in online videos

I also don't think they'll get away with it because they're loosing these geo-political conflicts.

Breaking News: Professor Glenn Diesen gone from yootoobz, no warnings just gone.

Still available on Rumble for now https://rumble.com/user/GlennDiesen

>>484759
I wonder what to make of this.

Glenn Diesen has very tame intellectual content, so they clearly have no legitimate reason to do this.

This could be a very flatfooted attempt at committing censorship. There could be a crime syndicate a foot. Some B-celebrities like Hilary Klingon (not sure if that's spelled correctly) already demanded that she her-self be persecuted for conspiring to commit mass-violation of freedom of expression. At least that's how i understood her words. I'm still having difficulties interpreting the new-speak, i wish we could go back to plain-talk.

It could also be a clever scheme to help Rumble to grow into a real competitor , in order to diversify online video platforms.

Imperial PR isn't going anywhere. It is re-basing in Europe, and you see some of its faces appearing as part of the "new normal" or "Fourth Reich" of German global dominance.

The "actual East" has no ability nor an interest in taking over PR, beyond putting up a standard front. China's foreign-language propaganda is hilariously awful, and of their competent propagandists, the message is "China is open for business", "China is your friend", and so on. Their agitation propaganda is kept awful and produced in cooperation with the empire, rather than against it.

What "the West" is censoring is all of the people who are being liquidated or will be liquidated in the near future. Can't have them using public access to appeal in any way what is done to them. Up until now, there was some expectation of legal appeal or hearings regarding all of the horrible shit that has been done to them. This will no longer be acceptable now that the public-facing governments are dissolving, and people see the empire and its leading lights as the source of their problem. Enough people already have appealed the empire, but the empire was covered by public-facing governments as its facade. With the dissolution of public life, that dodge no longer works, and public life is dissolved because it creates too many expectations that there is a way to appeal anything the ruling power and the law does that is obviously harmful. For example, outright seizure of private property held by ordinary people, which has happened at record pace since 2020, with every crisis being an opportunity to steal more stuff, and an explicitly stated goal to end home ownership or any mobility for actual humans.

Most Soviet censorship was basic, routine things any state with an intact public would do. It is entirely in bounds for a state to legislate public morality, whether the censorship is explicit as with most states, or implicit as in the United States. All throughout the history of the US, laws were passed at state and local levels, and occasionally at federal level, to do exactly this. The law of free speech was never a blanket protection for assholes to say what they want with clear intention to mock a free society, using retards who cannot comprehend the concept and insist on their fake and insane Germanic "freedom".

It should be telling that the only victory for "freedom" is striking down sodomy laws and forbidding people to resist this invasion of their lives and disruption of their most basic relations, and we're told this news with glowing, cheerful music, when we know they cut up our brains and mock us every single day and goad us repeatedly, knowing that it is now illegal to even say what this is let alone do anything about it. Nothing the Soviet Union did came close to that, and the most egregious Soviet censorship was to defend the people who were preparing to dismantle communism and present the nation's asshole for deeper ramming for the empire.

>>484772
The Soviet type censorship was incorrect too. The only reason to do censorship is for protectionism in order to create a domestic media production sector, in case you lack media. And you wouldn't censor any specific opinions, because people generally are inflexible about what type of messages they listen to, and you want as many people as possible to listen to your media. You can only put the thumb on the scale of public opinion by making sure the preferred political direction gets more resources for broader coverage, a nicer presentation and so on. Anything further and you create nothing but people who will with infinite stubbornness refuse to believe anything you say, or even listen to what you say. There were people in the soviet Union that listened to Radio free Europe for no other reason than F the state-censor

Until now China had no chance to make any headway against western media, precisely because it was open enough that you could find voices for more or less every possible political direction. If western media begins to censor certain voices, that's when China gets a chance to expand it's media influence. Because there's people who are no longer getting supplied by western media. I hate to use a market-metaphor, but it works well for this: Think about censorship as refusing to offer anything to a certain segment of the market. That's an opening for the competition.

Basically the primary battle is about getting people to adopt your information medium, what kind of information that medium contains is secondary. This is how western media became dominant in the world. I think the medium is the message was the catchphrase for that supremely successful strategy. The point isn't about brain-washing people with propaganda, that's not how you win. First it's only partially possible to do that, and second the goal is to get people all over the world to consume your media in order to make them learn your language, to adopt your conceptual frameworks, adopt the standards of your system, all intangible things that are difficult to quantify but that gives you a huge advantage because your stuff is the default.

Also it's likely that the Chinese will begin to ease up on their censorship, because that will enable them to gain the global audience the western media is loosing. The sign to look out for will be when they begin making exemptions that free certain publications from the purview of the Chinese state-censor. That'll be the beginning of the expansion-phase.

>What "the West" is censoring is all of the people who are being liquidated
>there was some expectation of legal appeal or hearings regarding all of the horrible shit that has been done to them. This will no longer be acceptable now that the public-facing governments are dissolving, and people see the empire and its leading lights as the source of their problem.
You can only get away with that kind of stuff if you're winning. The imperial system isn't winning. The imperial super-profits will dry up, and then the economic basis that funds repression against the population goes away, and then repression will be overcome. Also there is a distinction between domestic governance and the imperial system. Governance by itself isn't dissolving.

>It is entirely in bounds for a state to legislate public morality, whether the censorship is explicit as with most states, or implicit
You're a fool, morality serves the purpose of enabling bad people to commit horrors. Morality is what enabled the which-hunts and religious persecution in the dark ages. It's not what you think it is, it's not good people imposing good behavior on bad people. It's bad people pretending to be good people, creating a byzantine rule system they can manipulate to obfuscate persecution of people they don't like.

> The law of free speech was never a blanket protection for assholes to say what they want with clear intention to mock a free society, using retards who cannot comprehend the concept and insist on their fake and insane Germanic "freedom".
They're not planning on censoring the assholes, you'll still be able to listen to Netanyahu rant about how it's an anti-semitic holocaust that some Palestinians survived.

>>484783
The reason for censorship isn't an ulterior motive to be tested by your enemies. If you do that, you're asking to be derailed by any dishonest actor who is happy to lie, who has lied every step of the way and forced everyone else to glorify the lying. Censorship is among the most basic functions of a state, not a tool or policy that is switched out. Nothing about censorship applies to "perfect systems" in that way. The entire reason censorship exists is because there is no such thing as "perfect systems with perfect information", and the habit of humans to lie makes perfect information impossible and undesirable. If you must make all humans completely and autistically honest for your society to work, it has already failed. Every state in history has presumed that humans are not naturally good at all and cannot be trusted. In all cases, humans are moral actors in order for a state to even exist. Otherwise, not even fear would keep a society in line - only brute, unreasoning force would. You can see how exhausting it is to live up to the insane standards of "perfect information", which were only ever imposed by cajolers who always freely lie about everything and anything, and declare imperiously that it illegal to acknowledge that they are lying.

There is a gross misunderstanding of the role of the censor, and how states control media, both in the past and in the present. The modern lies rely on fetishizing information and symbolic representation to make moral standards of comparison impossible. This is the Germanic insanity, which need not be repeated. The German ideology is a fast way to destroy your country and sell it off to foreign powers, which is exactly what the German philosophers and the Nazis did, and what the Germans live under today. These institutions are shit!

The censor does not exist to make "perfect information" or "control reality", as if the expression of ideas in of themselves held any power. The censor's role re: public morality is primarily moral rather than informational or intellectual. So, early modernity, just before the revolutions, it did not occur to the monarchy that it had to censor the liberal ideas. What they were censoring were obviously disgusting materials like pornography, since - and it's hilarious to recount this - pornography was used to facilitate revolutionary material precisely because it would mobilize through shock value some useful idiots that the Masons (Jacobins) wanted to get the ball rolling. Only when there was a growing democratic sector agitating for what it really wanted, for the brief period that it could, did calls for suppression of the rebels by violent force take the front - after the moderate republicans were tossed out.

In practice, anything anyone says or does will make them suspect. No law or policy will change that, regardless of how many "freedom points" are assessed by some metric as if it were a technocratic policy. In any society, free or unfree, someone is accountable for what they say or do, and this more than state censorship is what deters someone from speaking too freely. The state censors know this, and so their censorship is usually defended by something other than the state's interest in information - information it already possesses. Very often, states would foment false revolutionary fronts specifically to entrap anyone who thinks revolution is a glorious story like many a retard have. With the French Revolution, there was a particular fostering of liberal values… but the chief parent to uphold liberal values was the noble Duke of Orleans, and this could happen without the monarchy really caring that much. They were, after all, siding with similarly-minded rebels in America as the revolution builds up. The pressure against the liberals was not "we have to suppress their ideas which are just naturally popular", because the liberal ideas were never popular, and the angry peasants either took no interest in liberal ideas or sided with anyone who would answer some things they wanted, even if they were just choosing to defend the rights of the nobles that Louis was undermining before and during the revolution. In this scenario, the liberals were not even the most powerful commoner faction, and would not be so until the republicans abolish the monarchy and no one in Paris would vote against the left. Not long after, censorious efforts were against the right rather than the left, with some effort to make sure the angry mob did not become too unruly. But, for the most part, this censorship did not rely on states imposing it on an unwilling populace. You had Marat cheerleading the suppression of the hard rightists and they made busts of him like he was some minor deity to be admired - and he was admired. Ordinary people read Marat and loved the idea of cutting off the head of rightist saboteurs and breaking their presses, so some decency could return to the world.

Usually, if the positions of the hard right are desirable to a large base, your society has failed, and failed spectacular, because the only values of the far right are extreme pornography and death cult faggotry. The far right advances this creed because the objective is never popularity, but glorifying the most unpopular and disgusting ideas and telling everyone they must abide it by pure fear, and ruthlessly extreminating anyone who tells these fags no - and they are pure, unmitigated fags.

I know I'm responding to a tard who can't get basic shit, but they really need to ask why this posturing and performance of "toughness" was glorified by liberal so-called democracy, and see how what was normalized especially during the 1990s is by historical standards extremely ultraviolent and invasive of private life in a way that had never been possible before.

>>484793
>The reason for censorship isn't an ulterior motive to be tested by your enemies. If you do that, you're asking to be derailed by any dishonest actor who is happy to lie, who has lied every step of the way and forced everyone else to glorify the lying. Censorship is among the most basic functions of a state, not a tool or policy that is switched out. Nothing about censorship applies to "perfect systems" in that way. The entire reason censorship exists is because there is no such thing as "perfect systems with perfect information", and the habit of humans to lie makes perfect information impossible and undesirable. If you must make all humans completely and autistically honest for your society to work, it has already failed. Every state in history has presumed that humans are not naturally good at all and cannot be trusted. In all cases, humans are moral actors in order for a state to even exist. Otherwise, not even fear would keep a society in line - only brute, unreasoning force would. You can see how exhausting it is to live up to the insane standards of "perfect information", which were only ever imposed by cajolers who always freely lie about everything and anything, and declare imperiously that it illegal to acknowledge that they are lying.
<censorship defeats liars
<the state machinery is able and willing to use censorship on behalf of truth
<censorship is human-nature state-nature
I call Bullshit.

The Soviets were a honest attempt at building socialism, they tried to use censorship in good faith and it failed. At the end nobody believed anything the media said, people just treated everything the media said as a statement of intentions from government officials, something unrelated to reality. I don't think we'd be any better at it, therefore the censorship policy/tool (yes that's what it is) belongs into the dustbin of history

You are right there are liars, but censorship just ends up serving an other type of liar who thinks it's easier to lie if they can silence people who call them out on their lies.

Also consider why the neocons want to bring back censorship. They remember the 90s when they didn't face all that political opposition from below. They think it's because people mostly watched mainstream media on television during that time and internet communication wasn't primary. They think that because they could "cOntRolE the nArraTiVe" that they could trick more people into supporting their schemes.
That's complete nonsense, they had support because they were winning most of the geo-strategical battles.
Today People are withdrawing the support from the neocons because they are now loosing every single geo-strategical battle.
That's all there is too it.

The other thing the neocons do is look at China where Xii Jinping gets like 80-90% approval ratings. And they think it's because China has a state-censor. And that's nonsense too. China has excellent economic performance, people have rising standards of living, expanding social services, rising life expectancy, basically a bright future. That's the cause for the good approval ratings.

If the neo-libs and the neo-cons try to use censorship as a means to continue their failed policies, they'll just convince people that they need verifiable free-speech where we assume that censorship is happening unless proven that no censorship mechanisms exist. And failing the free-speech verification is treated like a capital crime.

The censorship industrial complex they're building will be seen as a mega-crime, the equivalent of a Nazi concentration camp, except in the information realm.

As for your claim that it's not possible to build an open system that operates on truth, consider this:
You don't need to enforce the "political-line of truth" on the population. You only need to make sure that all the people who genuinely want to know what the truth is and base their actions on it, aren't hindered and have the necessary resources. There are people who genuinely want to know what's what, like investigative journalists, a section of analysts, researchers and scientists. There are other people who want to use that information to organize society, economic production and so on. And you just have to make sure those people are enabled. Those people will be pioneers and the rest of society will eventually copy the successful models and probably pretend they invented it.

>>483702
>he thinks that the socialist internet is some wild west Yee haw ancap internet
>he think we haven't departed from this stage of internet long ago
Not to dickride china but their method of forcing verificication for practically all social media is the right step forward. I personally think that all public/popular social media needs to be verified through personal identity. The issue here is false accounts and anonymous accounts can spread misinformation and manipulate public opion with no repercussion. To speak in popular public forums should require you to legitimize yourself as a human being. Now the issue with anonymous boards like this one is not verifying identity, but verifying originality. The main things to look out for is bots and propagandists as the point is to flood the social medias and forums, and craft an ecosystem of information/opinion. The way to combat this is to establish an authenticity model similar to blockchain. Posts therefore will have their own unique identifier that cannot be copied and replicated.

>>484808
The behavior of states is very inhuman and not at all natural. This is very basic to anyone who learns political thought and history - that politics is by its nature an artificial thing humans created, rather than something "fused with nature". Nature doesn't give a shit about anything political or the institutions humans build like states or firms. Nature does not give a shit about life-forms as they are, and does not possess any "natural order" in that sense you imply.

If you are presuming there is a natural order that is just-so and "solves" censorship for you, that is placing the censor's role in nature itself and a presumed "natural state". I hope you realize what you call for is for more stultifying to reason and truth than any artificial censorship ever could, and this ideology you promote has always held that goal - to make opposition to eugenics and similar claims "unnatural" and thus worthy of censorship as an obligation of all individuals. When you are invoking this idea that nature will produce a predetermined result by declaring beforehand that humans are evolutionary flotsam, you are constructing in your mind a natural state that is unlimited in its tyranny, and must violently "correct history" with every action to insist the world operates as you presume it does. It can't not do this.

My point isn't "censorship is inevitable". Obviously states abandon this function, as ours did, and the results of abandoning this function have been predictable and intended to abolish all standards of comparison. Wherever there is political society, there is a function of censorship. The imperious mind only imagines censorship as the same hectoring and cajoling behavior they assert is "natural law" and absolute, "above God" and above any reason against it. The reason I have to say this is that you don't seem to understand the arguments you're making and the implications. This is common with Anglo-Imperial Brain, a terminal mental illness which destroys every life it touches. But, whenever you have any standard of moral comparison for a society - and there is always one standard that rises above all others - there is the role of the censor. If there is any imagined hierarchy of who has a right to speak on moral matters, this censorship role is implied. Not all claims to moral authority are equal or can be equal - some will be more righteous than others. Even if we negated our personal investment in any moral stance, detaching ourselves and striving for complete neutrality, we would see this play out in any serious treatment of moral philosophy and ethics. We see the result of "ignorance is strength" and this Satanic ethos you're advancing, and that as I said was predicted when this ideology was advanced and imposed on reality.

The reason the neocons want to abolish the first amendment concerns much more than censorship, and at no point was the First Amendment about being able to say what you want - it was never interpreted as that and you're an asshole for bastardizing the concept of a free society. The real reason for moving to scrap the first amendment is to prepare for a general purge and eliminate all avenue of appeal when they do "COVID 2". Obviously they won't use COVID or the same medical emergency tactic as the pretext as they did in 2020. What they're going to do by abolishing the First is make it illegal to say no under any circumstances to any medical intervention - and medical interventions will be extended to forced execution under eugenics law. It's not about your stupid opinions or ego. It's about making it illegal to have any concept that this can be appealed, since among the legal rights is free assembly and an expectation that you can, in line with the freedom the First implies, appeal policy and have a public record of this. If the state refuses to acknowledge what its own law states, you as a free person would be able to say this to the public (and everything the First covers pertains to public speech - you can say whatever privately, and you have no right regarding private speech, funny how that works but the constitution does not concern private conduct, and the only restriction on the state is that arbitrarily imprisoning someone without legal pretexts is way past tyrannical and becomes the point of no return where you no longer have a republic where any of these legal theories would apply).

So, they're preparing for a general purge, and the likely conditions for this are to foment civil war and drag the rest of the world into it. At the very least, the death cull in the former United States will accelerate. They hate Americans that much, and you're a fucking tard for encouraging it. But, that's what they apparently want, and they have enough dumb fags who will carry it out.

>look at China where Xii Jinping gets like 80-90% approval ratings.

Most in China interpret "approval" as "support the Communist system". Xi is the leader of the Communist Party, which holds the political monopoly. An equivalent question for an American might be "do you believe in freedom and democracy", and you'd find 90% of Americans agree with that, and would agree that the office of President is entitled to have the powers we associate with it. Lots of people don't like the holder of the office, certainly here. The appeal of Xi is not a personal appeal, like he alone moves history by his magnificent power. He's there because he rose in the Party and the Party does not promote showmen or incompetents, and does not exist for performance and hold as much open contempt for a free society as American rulers do. I would wager that Xi is personally more popular than any American President, but there are plenty of people who fucking hate everything since Deng and will say so. But, if you were told to cease supporting Joe Biden and support some Nazi who runs on saying "democracy is fake and gay and we should all scream for more blood", would you support the Nazi or Joe Biden? I know that's a facile question because Biden is preparing such a transformation, but if you asked me to maintain the fictions of the US however brittle or openly embrace the worst possible transformation that a concerted interest wants to impose, I'm with Sleepy Joe. You don't get the revolution you want as this immaculate plan that will totally work. There are quite a few who do not like the communist system and will say so. They can't do anything, but no government actually lets people dissolve it from within, unless the coup has worked in secret as it has in the United States. The coupists in China are reviled because the only idea they have is Nazism and cannibalizing the Chinese people. There are people like that in every country who only thing about torturing everyone around them and supplicating to massa. Only in the current, very bad conditions of the US are such people given sanction. Usually they are called the sniveling fags they are and not allowed to hold any power over any policy. Before 2016 and elevating Trump, these people were denounced as the sniveling fags they are, but the liberals had a clever way of associating people who wanted anything different with fascism, as this long-run op to Nazify the country. You can't talk about that without the screech brigade starting in, but Nazification is the only way to interpret what they did to us as children in the 1990s. The Nazis in the woodwork were beaming with delight at what they got away with then.

Things like that are why you need to recall what a censorship function is, rather than this Germanic idea of lying about everything and insisting freedom is purely performative.

>>484815
I don't think you realize how easy it is to fake an identity. This is unlikely to actually stop astroturfing, but it will impose yet another form of mass surveillance and tracking on people. Electronic interactions will never be the same as your idealized in-person public forums.

Also blubbering about "misinformation" tells me you're aligned with the Western ruling class trying to clamp down hard on speech and information control. The chief disseminators of lies and propaganda are the mass media and governments, not random users on social media.

>>484815
>forcing verificication for practically all social media is the right step forward. I personally think that all public/popular social media needs to be verified through personal identity. The issue here is false accounts and anonymous accounts can spread misinformation and manipulate public opion with no repercussion.
This is ruling ideology nonsense.
Are you a glowie ?

You even said the censorship-industrial-complex propaganda nonsense-word " "misinformation" "
No valid argument can contain that word, information is an indivisible concept, meaning there is no opposite of information.
Information can only be correct, partially correct or incorrect.
You can also qualify information by saying that information contains propaganda or errors.
And you can say information contains deception.
To be thorough, Information can be quantified by the amount of entropy it contains.

Another gripe, there is no "public opinion" as in singular, there's always lots of different opinions.

Verifiably anonymous expression is necessary to negate censorship by intimidation. Which is a type of psychological terrorism. Nobody can possess the means to inflict systemic psychological terror, lest he be guilty of it by default. As such anonymity is a human right.

Forceful identification is also a type of discrimination against people for whom effective-privacy is a biological need like breathing.

In case you are not "dick-riding" the censorship-industrial-complex and honestly believe this could work , i will provide you with an argument why the ID verification schemes will fail to achieve what you describe.

What you are proposing is not really going to stop malicious actors from being a negative influence on people. ID-verification schemes are just gate-keeping mechanisms, where the people who controle the ID-verification-scheme attempt to monopolize information power, because they would still be able to have sock-puppet accounts and bot accounts, as an Neo-aristocratic privilege.

And to be clear it won't work it will spawn an unflappably resilient fake-ID cottage industry. And all these fake accounts that simulate the "verified person status" with id-verification-theater will make the problem you are trying to solve worse. At least temporary, until people realize "ID verified" is as worthless as a blue-check-mark on Formerly-twitter.

The central error you are making is designing systems where you have to trust what can only be described as a point-of-failure. ID-systems are terrible in the digital age, they are a technology invented for an organic analog age. For people interacting with other people in meat-space without any technological layers in-between.

If you are genuinely interested in a effective systems of distinguishing meat-space-humans from for example online-bots, you have to do a specific sub-type of a web-of-trust.

You have to meat somebody in meat-space and exchange a cryptographic signature with that person.
And then you know that this person really exists and vice versa they know you exist. And you can vouch for the person-hood of that account to other people adjacent to you in the web-of-trust.

A web-of-trust-adjacent is somebody else that you have authenticated done an empirical meat-space-existence measurement by your self. If everybody does this, with at least three people they know in meat-space you'll get statistical effects that make it very hard to pass off fake accounts as real people. Without creating a point-of failure. If everybody were to measure the existence of 6 people, the statistical effects become overwhelming.

Also please don't attempt to copy Chinese solutions that use authority, we do not have self-correcting authorities that can effectively curb abuses of power. For example China had a police violence problem, where police officers would rough-up citizens for fun, run protection rackets and various other types of corruption. At some point this triggered ferocious self-disciplining mechanisms echoing Mao's struggle sessions, and now Chinese police officers are polite, respectful and corruption is declining. Western governments used to be effective at that as well, but currently, the signs are not looking good. For example the US does not appear to be capable of fixing it's police-violence problem, which is arguably worse then the Chinese one because it's more deadly. It's not just the US, the secret police in the UK is abusing a so called "anti-terror" law intended to counter "illegal uses of explosives" to assault, kidnap and torture journalists.

I don't know if we can fix this, and it might be that the Chinese may eventually also loose the struggle against the institutional rot. If it is possible to solve a coordination problem with a trust-less statistical model, that should always be preferred.

>>484815
>Now the issue with anonymous boards like this one is not verifying identity, but verifying originality. The main things to look out for is bots and propagandists as the point is to flood the social medias and forums, and craft an ecosystem of information/opinion. The way to combat this is to establish an authenticity model similar to blockchain. Posts therefore will have their own unique identifier that cannot be copied and replicated.
This is actually interesting, because you are going into the direction of evaluating the presented information by itself rather than attempting to judge information by who said it.

You would have to explain to me how you judge originality, and what the authenticity model does.

I find this worth exploring, because in my experience with discussions on online-platforms where people have to identify them selves, leads to pre-prejudice, where nobody listens to what others say, instead they just look at the profile to check whether they're on the same team or not. And then discussion morphs into a word-battle-royal with people ignoring what others say and instead attacking prejudice-fiction-characters.

>>484822
Idk what u said bc that’s way too much text but your wrong

>>484824
thanks for the reverse psychology approval

The company you keep…

>>484828
Is she doing this on purpose ?

As in is she playing the evil censorship-witch to make people hate her, because negative attention is better than no attention ?

>>484830
Probably.
But everyone complains about censorship but then will advocate for censorship against platforms they don't like

Ogre is praising Turkey for passing a ban for fbi.gov

>>484851
>Ogre is praising Turkey for passing a ban for fbi.gov
Wait a minute Ogre is still up ?
I just went there to check and it just redirected me to leftypol TV
What gives ?

Why is Turkey banning discuck ?
I mean it's got terrible privacy and there's better alternatives, but it seems unreasonable to ban it.

I'm guessing they're anxious about the people who own/controle discuck ? Why aren't they shilling for an open-source alternative where they can run their own servers. Or they could go one step further and hire software-people to fork one of those FOSS alternatives and call it Turk-cord. They could add lots of specific features the Turkish people really like. They could make all Turkish governmental organizations sign up for it and incentivize Turkish companies to do too, to boost network effects.

What ever happened to using intelligence to win people over. I think we need to redesign the internet so that it's not vulnerable to the inquisition that tries to excommunicate everybody they don't like, So that people who build cool stuff are those that win.