Censorship By Decree of Sidewalk Superintendents

So certain groups online who are not specifically government bodies have started taking it on themselves to censor information that offends them, or they find otherwise problematic.

These censorship tactics are religious and political in nature.

These censorship tactics are often only applied within the Western cultures.

Tactics such as destroying websites, fiddling with search results, DOS attacks, intimidation, etc are all being used.

Apparently these tactics are okay if done by self-appointed culture meddlers, instead of "Big Brother."

What's the difference between an authoritarian dictator deciding what you are allowed to know, and a keyboard commander deciding you aren't allowed to see certain things that they deem politically offensive?

Hmmmm?

The difference is hard to tell unless you look at the motives. This argument is mostly moot as the outcome is the same.

It doesn't even matter what specific group you point at if they do the very things they claim to abhor.

One thing a corrupt system can't stand is competition though.

So are you referring to the "Anonymous" organization (if you can call it that)?

In my opinion, I don't think it's right or wrong, it's either a constructive or destructive influence.

As far as I understand the original purpose of the Anonymous hackers was for destructive purposes.

You know, what they say, "for the lulz", I think that really encapsulates the underlying mentality of the original participants.

It's not about helping people, it's more like when you vandalize your school. You hate the institution so you act out against it.

That's just my guess though.

I would definately like to see where religion was specifically involved with shutting down free information, when not directly involved with government control. I'm quite sure it happens, just want names.

Westboro church.

Do I find them offensive? Yes. Were they targeted for having religious views inside the same culture as most of these butt-in-skys? Yes. They sure aren't targeting Al-Q forums.

Originally posted by Aeons
Westboro church.

Do I find them offensive? Yes. Were they targeted for having religious views inside the same culture as most of these butt-in-skys? Yes. They sure aren't targeting Al-Q forums.

Anon never claimed to attack WBC. In fact, they were flattered that the church tried to pretend they had been attacked. They even made a video abouit it.

I didn't specifically or only mention Anonymous.

They certainly aren't the only group of online political meddlers forcing their views on others that exist.

Originally posted by Aeons
I didn't specifically or only mention Anonymous.

They certainly aren't the only group of online political meddlers forcing their views on others that exist.

edit on 2011/8/16 by Aeons because: (no reason given)

Throwing them all in the same bunch is the same kind of tactics employed by the people you are scorning in this post.

Nice try though, the people on ATS don't care much for charlatans. It's not hard to see through propaganda and labels.

So you think that if Anonymous suppresses information, that's BETTER than when the govenrment does it, or LulzSec, or any other politically motivated group.

Explain to me. What makes one group more "pure of heart" in their censorship?

Originally posted by Aeons
So you think that if Anonymous suppresses information, that's BETTER than when the govenrment does it, or LulzSec, or any other politically motivated group.

Explain to me. What makes one group more "pure of heart" in their censorship?

I don't recall that being in the headlines so it's a moot point. I'm not defending anyone really, I'm merely pointing out that taking a broad brush against a large and not even closely linked group of people is irresponsible and borderline slander.

Surely you are either ignorant, a troll, or both.

Originally posted by Aeons

What's the difference between an authoritarian dictator deciding what you are allowed to know, and a keyboard commander deciding you aren't allowed to see certain things that they deem politically offensive?

Hmmmm?

What's the going salary for a Civil Servant who does the Governments censoring work for them?

I guess that's the difference really.

Oh. So if one does it for FREE then it is okay. Then it is done for passion, and not money.

So if I REALLY REALLY believe something, then it is okay.

reply to post by Aeons


You misinterpret what I am saying.

The only difference betwen the two of them is that the Government Censors get paid for doing it, whereas the likes of Anonymous do not get paid.

Could you be more specific on who is and what has been censored? i don't understand...

Originally posted by Cobaltic1978
reply to post by Aeons

 

You misinterpret what I am saying.

The only difference betwen the two of them is that the Government Censors get paid for doing it, whereas the likes of Anonymous do not get paid.

You're right I did.

Though I think that is what the difference is. One group thinks that really really believing it somehow makes a difference.

reply to post by trika3000


www.newser.com...

How about this?

I'm actively looking for information, and some are going out of their way to destroy it because they don't think that it should be had.

*I* make that decision for me. Not Anonymous. Not the government. Not some church. And certainly not the Church of the Politically Righteous or Leftist in this case.

I will decide what I read. I will decide if that is important.

If I can't *see* what people are doing, then I can't fight it. Knock it off.

"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all. "
H. L. Mencken
US editor (1880 - 1956)

How about this?

reply to post by Aeons


According to the, Village Voice, the Twitter acount was "inactive" (meaning there were no tweets previous to the supposed hack).
No information was deleted, until the "hackers" deleted their own posts (then deleted the account altogether). The "hack" merely added some dumb comments, then deleted them (i think a lot of "Anonymous" antics are supposed to be funny, Lulz).
Also, was this twitter account really Brevik's to begin with? i tend to believe it was not Brevik's account in the first place and was just some jokers.

Are you a member of one of the investigative teams investigating Brevik's on-line activities?
If you are just ask one of your team members for the screen captures and the files of his accounts and his on-line comments and posts, which the authorities (or your fellow team members) already have.

And this from the Newser post...
..."Anonymous has been running a campaign to destroy the 1,500-page manifesto Brevik wrote before his twin attacks, replacing online versions of it with an edited take that contains "stupid stuff." ...

Contrary to what Newser says, Breviks original manifesto hasn't been destroyed nor can it be. Copies still do exist on the internet.
Some folks (who claim to be Anonymous) - re-wrote - added to - and changed some content in an effort to parody Brevik's manifesto and confuse gawkers (and possibly to mock the morbid curiousity of gawkers). Nobody is deciding what you can and cannot read, and if they are you wouldn't know.

So, Andrew's free speech was left intact and can be found on the interwebs.
But, some "Anonymous" folks have also used their right to free speech in mocking or parodying the original manifesto. Obviously the original can't be destroyed and copies exist in many places.
[Just to add, i've read a few mock-ifestos and some were kinda funny.]

As the video that i posted indicates anything that is censored (and/or banned) is not known about, with the exception of those involved in the censorship or "those in the know".

Everything else is merely fodder for us to ruminate and to speculate on.

Originally posted by trika3000

How about this?

reply to post by Aeons

 

Nobody is deciding what you can and cannot read, and if they are you wouldn't know.
(sic)
Everything else is merely fodder for us to ruminate and to speculate on.

How nice. They aren't, but if they were so what.

And they are.

Am I part of an online investigator group. No. You may assume, I am a "lone wolf."

Good for you. Mock. It is your right.

Redacting my rights, because you really really think you should be allowed to....I already put up with enough of that from big boys with suits, I don't need little boys with computers deciding they also get to.

Screw off.

reply to post by Aeons


You make no sense... what are you talking about? Who is redacting your rights and how? Allowed to what? You make no sense. Are you thinking someone is keeping info from you? What is it that they're keeping and who are "they"?

Originally posted by Aeons
Westboro church.

Do I find them offensive? Yes. Were they targeted for having religious views inside the same culture as most of these butt-in-skys? Yes. They sure aren't targeting Al-Q forums.

(Note, This is referring to the alleged Anon attack against the WBC which was a total hoax and designed to get the Church some media attention. It also failed)

Originally posted by Aeons
I didn't specifically or only mention Anonymous.

Originally posted by Aeons
So you think that if Anonymous suppresses information, that's BETTER than when the govenrment does it, or LulzSec, or any other politically motivated group.

Originally posted by Aeons
*I* make that decision for me. Not Anonymous. Not the government. Not some church. And certainly not the Church of the Politically Righteous or Leftist in this case.

/thread

Thanks for wasting our time.

Next time some examples of the fictitious activities you are frothing against would be nice. Most trolls actually make up some facts to make their thread seem credible or readable.