Skip to main content

View Diary: Wanker of the Year, Blogosphere Division (178 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Exactly! (16+ / 0-)

    No sinking anyone.  We win on the merits of our arguments.  Period.

    This is a freedom of speech issue...and that includes (ugh) the toads and weasels over on the right wing.

    •  Could not agree more... (10+ / 0-)

      If the First Amendment means anything, it means that they have the right to announce to the world that they're totally wrong about absolutely every issue.

      The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it -- GB Shaw

      by kmiddle on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 06:51:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Toads? Weasels? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      teeb, MikeTheLiberal, JoeW

       title=Aw... just leave the poor critters be. They is innocent! Innocent I tell ya!

      Both toads and weasels are fabulous critters for pest control though. Unlike Republicans who just seem to love pesticides... and vote for breed new pests who are immune to the stuff.

    •  There is no freedom of speech online (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MikeTheLiberal, JoeW

      Freedom of speech is a constitutional construct inside federal jurisdiction. It is tied to 18th century idea of territory. Meaningless or at least nearly meaningless online. Nice for talking street protest, but not gonna fly on the net.

      if GOP hires an anonymous gun to attack anybody's site from armenia. You can talk freespeech until you turn blue it still no meaning online. The bot will still chew you up and destroy your net existence.

      Use Tor and PGP on the net. (google it)

      by fugue on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 06:54:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You realize that this post is about (5+ / 0-)

        an FEC complaint?

        You can't frighten us with your sorcerer's ways!

        •  logical extension (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          byteb, MikeTheLiberal

          It's opening salvo.  Combined with what we know (wingnut sites buying up net rankings (technorati/bear), PJmedias, Lieberman declaring blog dangerous, etc)

          you can sense that GOP is developing coherent strategy against progressive net entity.

          This FEC complained by some random schmos/GOP front organization is nothing but one part of the move.

          It is only logical. It fits how GOP operate. naively thinking legal system will be there to protect anybody online is dubious concept, or at least very naive.

          The legal system IS the subject of manipulation.

          Use Tor and PGP on the net. (google it)

          by fugue on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 07:16:04 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  I blame Microsoft (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        katier, ER Doc, JeffW

        The bot will still chew you up and destroy your net existence.

      •  I'm a little confused. (0+ / 0-)

        Are you suggesting that people will be able to stifle free discussion by taking down servers?  This seems to be more of a temporary technical concern than a concern about the system.

        •  Online (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          byteb, upperleftedge

          We are not talking the right to frees peech on the street etc. But continuity of online entities. (blog, website, etc)

          Obviously there is some legal protection and a web site is not entirely unhinged from laws of the land.

          But that is not the entire game.

          Yes, if GOP is able to shut down 3-4 top progressive sites the net effect will be crippling to progressive movement. Regardless if you have the right to shout on the street or not. That means approximately 2 millions   users are loosing ways to contact each other effectively to transmit opinion.  For all practical purposes, you can't say what you want to say to people you know.

          Use Tor and PGP on the net. (google it)

          by fugue on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 07:28:18 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  So move them to Holland (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            Or Gambia or Singapore.  You can't regulate overseas speech.  Not effectively, in any case.

            The Cubs WILL win the World Series in '07. I'm not saying which century, though.

            by nightsweat on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 07:53:51 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  d00000d (0+ / 0-)

              There is no "there" there online. Everywhere is the same. You gotta dispose the thinking that there is some magical force (aka. law) that will realistically protect a site from being shut down when the power that be wants it.

              It won't. Sooner or later GOP crew is going to play stupid pet trick like a 15 yrs old script kiddies. That's just how they operate. Either prepare or perish.

              Use Tor and PGP on the net. (google it)

              by fugue on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:00:16 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  d000000d, you're wrong (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                I suggest you examine the case of the Pirate Bay or of the efforts the administration made to shut down overseas gambling sites.  The only way they could knock them down was via an indirect attack by prohibiting credit card companies and banks from processing the transactions.

                If DoS attacks were unstoppable, every black hole list site would have been taken down year ago.  They're all stoppable with a little cooperation between ISP and host.

                The Cubs WILL win the World Series in '07. I'm not saying which century, though.

                by nightsweat on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:18:01 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  The squeeze is on (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        upperleftedge, Fabian

        because Dkos is seen as a real threat by the right wing. Even if they lose on the merits, this will consume valuable time, money and energy...and time, money and energy is what we need as we approach crucial election time.
        We need to be prepared for legal strikes or ShrillBill or whatever else they try to throw at us and we need to stay united.

        I think, therefore, I snark. Anon.

        by byteb on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 07:31:53 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  And even (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      they understand it to be a freedom of speech issue, which pretty much means even an imbecile should get it, so what does that make  Bambenek? Half an imbecile? Quarter of an imbecile?

      •  Or a tool who is operating (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ER Doc

        in concert with others to see what might stick?

        The fact that this would affect right-wing bloggers as well (though not in terms of a resources drain on this site, which is an attractive objective for the far-right), indicates that the source is not within blogdom, but outside it.

        Or perhaps we are seeing the actions of a simpleton who can't understand his own self-interest as a citizen (if he cares about such things): I suspect he is following orders outside the blogosphere, though there may me some other reason for his submitting this complaint that we haven't put our finger on.

        Habeas Corpus:See Hamilton quoting Blackstone in The Federalist Papers, number 84.

        by Ignacio Magaloni on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 11:02:59 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site