Don't mention pork, snow or Al Qaeda

[Helandhighwater]

What?

Please don't talk to me. You're dumb.

Saying a mod is dumb is suicidal. I'd retract that, he isn't dumb he's just potentially wrong, although saying that will get you far more attention than saying he's dumb, cause dumb will get ya warned, or banned and silenced even if its true, and that has yet to be established by the proper channels of dumb.

Being honest on the internet does not play well in the sticks, this is not real life you can't call someone an idiot, dumb or whatever, even if you would say that to their face IRL and let's face it you so would, this is serious: this is INTERNET.

Even on a forum like this that is liberal you can't do or say what you would in the real world. Just two weeks ago I told my friend of 10 years that he was talking more shit than I was, and that he knew nothing. A second later I told an almost stranger he was being an idiot and should shut up likewise. The real world has some rules, the web has reality minus reality, it is the way it has to be. You aint free you aint even allowed to be yourself, sadly. For being who you truly are, and stating and saying what you would to someone who you were standing face to face with is a far lesser crime than lying about how you really feel.

The internet is twee, and becoming more so by the day. One day we will all wake up and find the internet is a place where no one is ever themselves, and can ever be that. Way it is going, sooner or later you will have no soul, and you wont even notice you lost it.

[SIATD v2]

You're missing the point - why pick 'snow' in the first place?

Because it's part of their sinister plan to spy on people from Minnesota. I don't know, YOU tell ME. In reality, it's for some reason that would make total and complete sense if you had the facts. Which you don't. Which is why this is nothing to get worked up about.

In which case why are you getting worked up about it? And if I don't have the 'facts' then you don't have the 'facts', in which case how can you be certain that it would make total and complete sense? That appears to be an argument from ignorance - because I can't prove (to your satisfaction) that this is part of a incremental but very real shift towards a schizoid state, a society of paranoia, it therefore is all fine and dandy and there's nothing to worry about?

Madness. Utter madness. Certainly not philosophy, at any rate.

Again, this is just playing at prejudice. If you're the type of person who's already deeply paranoid about Government intelligence, this will fuel your fire. If you're on the fence or ambivalent, there's no data here to move you to a change of position.

How ironic that you speak of playing at prejudice, only to go on to characterise anyone who has concerns about this as 'deeply paranoid'. Paranoia, of course, is unjustified, thus even your own pejorative description of my position (as you assume it) precludes the possibility of it being true.

Bullshit. Utter bullshit. Certainly not philosophy.

So unless something is truly 'news' in the sense of being new, you don't care about it?

New or exciting, I suppose.

And yet you believe in the story of Jesus, an ages-old reworking of previous messianic myths? Very odd.

Reason, I'd like to think. My motivation is that this just seems like a bunch of sensationalist trash designed to work people up and play to their suspicions without actually providing any information. That sort of thing bugs me.

Perhaps it bugs you because you have assumed (by your own admission without access to the 'facts') that it cannot be true. You are trying to take this story and this document and say that in isolation it proves nothing. A truism for sure, because no one piece of evidence considered in isolation can ever prove anything. So what?

I think you are failing to distinguish between RT's rather sensationalising coverage and what the file itself actually shows. I suspect this is deliberate, due to your above arguments illustrating how you clearly don't want to believe this is true. The thing is, I don't want to believe this is true. But having looked at the evidence (of which this is just one tiny example which considered out of context doesn't prove anything) I found that it is true. Truth isn't just about believing what you like, and dismissing anyone who thinks otherwise as them just believing what they want. You have to hold yourself to a better standard than that if you want your opinions about the world to be meaningful value-judgments rather than just a melange of repetitive propaganda and the path of least resistance.

Of course Twitter is a tool for social control, and Facebook, and Myspace before it. That's why I never use them and never will. But for the people who have addicted themselves to telling the entire fucking universe about every waking moment of their lives (and submitting themselves to the review and approval of strangers and near-strangers for it all), it should come as no surprise that 'the entire fucking universe' includes people who work for the FBI, NSA, Coca-Cola, and so on. That's a purely 'have your cake and eat it too' attitude to think otherwise.

I am not defending people posting a picture of every meal they eat on twitter and facebook. You are utterly trivialising and might I say sensationalising this disagreement because you have run out of stronger arguments. This makes you a hypocrite, given your own expression of distaste for sensationalising this same issue. Or is it like above, where you don't know the facts but you're allowed to say it will invariably just 'make sense' but I, who actually knows a hell of a lot more about this than you do, am not allowed an opinion on the subject? There it was an epistemological hypocrisy. Here it's a moral hypocrisy, you are criticising RT's coverage of this story and then adopting the same tabloid rhetorical mechanisms to try to dismiss the importance of this.

It's pathetic, utterly pathetic. Certainly not philosophy.

This isn't about invasion of privacy, it's about an atmosphere and mentality that will lead to self-censorship, it is about breeding compliant citizens.

Social media was about those things long before the Government got involved (if there was such a time). Self-censorship and complacency comes about just fine by the very nature of the media itself. Which is why you ought not do it if such things concern you.

I don't. I'm not on twitter. I am on facebook, but I never post status updates about what I am doing, I just use it as a means of keeping in touch with people. This isn't really about me worrying for myself. Funnily enough I am capable of worrying about a general direction the world is heading in, a general mentality that I don't really suffer from because I'm smart and self-disciplined enough to resist it but which afflicts a lot of people. Aside from making those people easier to control, it also makes them a lot less happy for NO GOOD REASON. Look at the fear in the eyes of most Westerners, particularly women. Bombarded with stories about how they will inevitably die in a plane crash or a 'home invasion' or a tsunami or by being anally raped to death by big black criminals/arab terrorists, they have no way to distinguish what to be afraid of and what to ignore.

Yet on this very thread, when I at least try to clarify what's happening here, you turn up with a load of bullshit, illogical twaddle and hypocrisy and say 'I don't want to know about this, how dare you bring it to my attention?!!!' You didn't have to open the thread. If you don't care about it then feel free to shut the hell up and let people just read about it and think about it for themselves.

It is several different factors. This isn't about stopping people from using the word 'snow', it's about making people think 'maybe I shouldn't write 'snow' because they might be watching',

Anyone who wasn't already thinking that way was insanely naive to begin with.

Tell me Ucci, does this cynicism make you behave in a way that makes you happy? Because fundamentally, you are going to die. Probably not bum-raped by terrorists and possibly not in a FEMA camp gas chamber but at some point. Now, maybe there's a heaven and maybe there isn't, but I'm pretty sure if there is that being a miserable cynic is not a prerequisite for entry. And if there isn't a heaven then you might want to attend a little more to how your choices about what you believe and why affect how happy you are about yourself and what you're doing in this world. I don't mean to condescend to you, but there it is.

Yes, the internet in a nutshell. With or without the Government. How many massive political movements have sprung up recently because people were shamed/manipulated into it through a semantic contagion spreading through their social media? Can you even count them on your fingers anymore? Think what you want, but by posting what I am the way I am, I'm actually resisting the effects of social media that you are trying to capitalize on this thread, and arguing for reason rather than 'movement'.

You have argued from ignorance, illogically, and hypocritically. That isn't reason. It just isn't.

Why, what do you expect they will find? The vast, vast majority of people talking about this stuff are the security services themselves.

The vast majority of people talking about pork and snow?

Probably, yes. Who talks about snow unless it's snowing or has recently snowed? Who, aside from a few scaly beasts like yourself living in nippy climes, sees a lot of snow?

And besides, if you're right about the above, then what's the problem? Let the spies spy on each other.

Or just get rid of them...?

It would have been quicker to answer the question. Do you think Governments should be prohibited from monitoring social media?

No. I think they shouldn't because a) it's the wrong thing to do, morally and strategically and b) because it results from a diseased mentality. Who would prohibit them from doing such a thing? The government. The government prohibiting itself from doing something? Yeah, that really sounds like it is going to be enforced.

That's what I mean about dividing the debate into polar opposites, a trait very common to Christian Americans. This isn't about either the government can spy on everyone as much as it likes OR the government should prohibit itself from spying on everyone as much as it likes. It goes to questions of morality and mentality, which are far more important than theoretical institutional structures like laws.

Look, just tell me what you want- You want an open social networking forum where everybody in the world can say things to everybody else in the world that comes with a guarantee that entities you don't trust will never see or take advantage of the information you give? No. That's not even coherent. So tell me what you really want- just to bitch? OK fine- which is why this is nothing exciting.

See above re: trivialising and sensationalising and how it makes you a hypocrite.

[Uccisore]

There's a damaging counterargument: some shitty one-liner you heard from some other yokel parent in the south.

There is a reason I was talking out loud and not -to- you. I'll leave you to figure out what that reason is.

Because you can't handle reasonable disagreement without reacting in a way similarly to the above, so you've found a compromise in which you get to tell the world what you think about everything, without giving the impression that you're inviting discourse.

How'd I do?

[Uccisore]

In which case why are you getting worked up about it?

I'm not getting worked up about 'it', I'm getting worked up about people who try to conjure paranoid delusions out of thin fucking air based on a dearth of information. See, related issues.

That appears to be an argument from ignorance - because I can't prove (to your satisfaction) that this is part of a incremental but very real shift towards a schizoid state, a society of paranoia, it therefore is all fine and dandy and there's nothing to worry about?

Difference being, I didn't create a thread telling everybody what to conclude from the lack of information- I'm pointing out that you don't know anything and are carrying yourself like you do. Supposing you're right, and both of us are equally ignorant about this situation. What then would be the proper response? I suppose it would be,

"Meh, who cares".

Sound familiar?

How ironic that you speak of playing at prejudice, only to go on to characterise anyone who has concerns about this as 'deeply paranoid'.

Ha. You're assuming that anybody who has concerns about Government intrusion would be concerned about the Government monitoring Twitter.

Perhaps it bugs you because you have assumed (by your own admission without access to the 'facts') that it cannot be true.

Assumed that WHAT cannot be true? That the Government is monitoring Facebook and other public media outlets? Oh no, not only do I not assume it cannot be true, I assumed it was true before I encountered this thread. True and utterly non-interesting.

So what it is that I'm assuming cannot be true?

Why, it can only be the unstated but dire implications that a person is supposed to read into the information you've presented.

You are trying to take this story and this document and say that in isolation it proves nothing.

Oh, it proves stuff. Not what you intended, maybe. But stuff.

I am not defending people posting a picture of every meal they eat on twitter and facebook. You are utterly trivialising and might I say sensationalising this disagreement because you have run out of stronger arguments.

Actually, what I just did is completely destroy any rational behind drawing dire conclusions from this information, and now you appear to be mad and saying it wasn't philosophy. Ha. I could give a shit if what I do meets your definition of such or not. All I can do is repeat my point since you went on a tangent and didn't address it:

Everybody reads what you put on Twitter. That is what it is there for. If you are upset because the Government is reading what you put on Twitter, then you either don't know what Twitter is, or you are insane. Same with Facebook. Same with internet message boards like this one, same with Usenet. The Government monitoring Twitter is about as 'intrusive' as the Government monitoring what's said in the Times. As other people in this thread have pointed out to you, public and private groups have been monitoring what's said in public media (newspapers, magazines, transcripts of television, and public Usenet posts) since all of these things have been in existence. The revelation that the Government is doing this kind of thing is only a revelation if you didn't hear about it decades ago.

http://www.burrellesluce.com/Media_Monitoring

There is simply no news here. The only thing of interest to discuss is why some handful of people would find such a regular thing 'disturbing'.

That's it. That's reality, and you can go on about what kind of person I am, what a Christian is 'supposed' to think, and what is or is not the proper way to do philosophy all you like and I simply couldn't give a shit. Unless you've got something to say about the above, you've got nothing to say that I care to read.

[Gobbo]

There's a damaging counterargument: some shitty one-liner you heard from some other yokel parent in the south.

There is a reason I was talking out loud and not -to- you. I'll leave you to figure out what that reason is.

Because you can't handle reasonable disagreement without reacting in a way similarly to the above, so you've found a compromise in which you get to tell the world what you think about everything, without giving the impression that you're inviting discourse.

How'd I do?

Good, only I don't mind disagreeing. Me and Siatd disagree all the time. My issue is talking to people who offer up no intellectual stimulation. Why waste time letting you fulfill some emotional quota through me when all I get is anger and disappointment in return? There is no reason to do that.

Obviously social media is here to stay. Not recognizing the interconnected value it brings is just foolish, and to think people will stop using it is just.... completely out there. No one should be advocating 'don't use social media' anymore than they would advocate not using the Internet itself: they are too close to the same thing, if not exactly the same thing, fundamentally.

So the assertion 'just don't use social media' is what I said it is, a shitty one-liner. I respectfully ask you try harder.

[Gobbo]

Put even more simply, if we haven't had an issue with SM up until this point, why would the establishment of a legal (as this has obviously been going on illegally for decades) echelon scanner keyword system thing force us to not focus on the eschelon keyword scanner system, but on the SM that has, as I said, not really been an issue? Why wouldn't we just focus on what is the problem, instead of something that has been around for a while that doesn't seem to pose a problem?

It's like if I had a car that ran fine, but then they were going to put in some fucked up toll highway that I had to drive through, and I complained to you about the highway, and then you told me 'Well, just don't drive your car if you care that much.'

It's just reasoning that doesn't many any sense no matter how you look at it.

[SIATD v2]

I'm not getting worked up about 'it', I'm getting worked up about people who try to conjure paranoid delusions out of thin fucking air based on a dearth of information. See, related issues.

As I have already pointed out to you, your assertion that they are 'paranoid delusions' is an argument from ignorance.

Plus, it's hardly 'out of thin fucking air' when one looks at the evidence presented, in the context of what's indisputably going on in the world.

That appears to be an argument from ignorance - because I can't prove (to your satisfaction) that this is part of a incremental but very real shift towards a schizoid state, a society of paranoia, it therefore is all fine and dandy and there's nothing to worry about?

Difference being, I didn't create a thread telling everybody what to conclude from the lack of information- I'm pointing out that you don't know anything and are carrying yourself like you do.

I know a hell of a lot about the tactics and mindset within intelligence services. It is probably the subject I have devoted the most time to learning about. It is on that basis that I make my judgments. You prefer to just assume that what you want to believe is right.

Supposing you're right, and both of us are equally ignorant about this situation. What then would be the proper response? I suppose it would be,

"Meh, who cares".

Sound familiar?

You are ignorant of the situation, I am not. The difference is, I am forming my judgment from a position of having looked at and analysed lots of evidence. You prefer to just assume that what you want to believe is right.

Ha. You're assuming that anybody who has concerns about Government intrusion would be concerned about the Government monitoring Twitter.

This is a straw man.

Perhaps it bugs you because you have assumed (by your own admission without access to the 'facts') that it cannot be true.

Assumed that WHAT cannot be true? That the Government is monitoring Facebook and other public media outlets? Oh no, not only do I not assume it cannot be true, I assumed it was true before I encountered this thread. True and utterly non-interesting.

If it were utterly non-interesting then you wouldn't still be arguing about it. Quit trying to act like you don't care when you clearly do, it is very childish.

So what it is that I'm assuming cannot be true?

Why, it can only be the unstated but dire implications that a person is supposed to read into the information you've presented.

I have stated them. I can state them again if you like, since you're obviously just not that observant.

But yes, it is those implications that you are assuming, from a position of almost complete ignorance, are 'paranoia', i.e. untrue. It is an argument from ignorance.

I am not defending people posting a picture of every meal they eat on twitter and facebook. You are utterly trivialising and might I say sensationalising this disagreement because you have run out of stronger arguments.

Actually, what I just did is completely destroy any rational behind drawing dire conclusions from this information, and now you appear to be mad and saying it wasn't philosophy. Ha.

Yeah, you completely destroyed it, just like in your computer games and your bible your heroes completely destroy things, yeah! Smug triumphalism in lieu of actually understanding the subject, yeah! Ucci! Ucci! Ucci!

Only it's really, really sad that you're the one who has to say that about yourself, because no one else will say it about you...

I could give a shit if what I do meets your definition of such or not.

You clearly could, otherwise why the attempt at face-saving smugness? Why try to persuade me or proclaim your victory if my stinging counterarguments to your position of 'ignorance therefore apathy' did not land, and land heavily?

In fact, why did you even respond at all, unless you felt compelled to do so because you do actually care?

All I can do is repeat my point since you went on a tangent and didn't address it:

Everybody reads what you put on Twitter. That is what it is there for. If you are upset because the Government is reading what you put on Twitter, then you either don't know what Twitter is, or you are insane. Same with Facebook. Same with internet message boards like this one, same with Usenet. The Government monitoring Twitter is about as 'intrusive' as the Government monitoring what's said in the Times. As other people in this thread have pointed out to you, public and private groups have been monitoring what's said in public media (newspapers, magazines, transcripts of television, and public Usenet posts) since all of these things have been in existence. The revelation that the Government is doing this kind of thing is only a revelation if you didn't hear about it decades ago.

http://www.burrellesluce.com/Media_Monitoring

Plenty of people live in poor countries. For decades people have lived in poor countries. For decades the US has bombed these people through no fault of their own and either killed them or just made their lives even worse. Should we not give a shit about that either, just oh-so-smug Ucci has declared simultaneously that he doesn't care about this and also that even though he hasn't a fucking clue what's going on, he is sure that his desired version of reality is true? Should we not give a fuck because, after all, if those people weren't living in those poor countries then the US wouldn't have killed them? Seriously, that's your gambit here?

Gotta say, I admire your balls. I wouldn't dream of writing such an obviously wrong and stupid argument in public, then re-asserting it in a smug and self-congratulatory manner to draw attention to it.

There is simply no news here. The only thing of interest to discuss is why some handful of people would find such a regular thing 'disturbing'.

Ironically, the thing of interest is to discuss why people like you would find such a disturbing thing so 'regular'.

That's it. That's reality, and you can go on about what kind of person I am, what a Christian is 'supposed' to think, and what is or is not the proper way to do philosophy all you like and I simply couldn't give a shit. Unless you've got something to say about the above, you've got nothing to say that I care to read.

Returning to the 'I'm so superior I don't care about it this lalalalala' position now? Great.

I invite anyone reading to look back over this thread. I simply posted an excerpt from an RT article and a link to the file, then pointed out something that I find highly amusing. Ucci then turns up with his miserable, cynical, depressed attitude towards EVERYTHING. He tried to proclaim that this is irrelevant, boring, nothing to see, but used as his justification that he is unaware of any other evidence that suggests it is relevant, important, something worth seeing and thinking about (which is, after all, the point of a philosophy forum - no? To share things so that other people might be inspired to think about them? But no, for Ucci the point is to go around laying turds of tedium in other people's threads because he has nothing to contribute except bashing things that he doesn't agree with). When challenged over this he became smug, declared that he had 'completely destroyed' any reason to think this was important, and then like an adolescent who knows he is beaten, proclaimed that he didn't care and it didn't matter anyway.

The evidence of this behaviour is publicly available because while Ucci might not like bearing his soul on twitter, he's perfectly happy to do so here. I'm sure he's quite hurt and embarrassed now, hence the pathetic attempts at bravado, so I'll stop giving him a hard time for thinking a police state is just 'regular', which is presumably also the size of Pepsi he orders. But in all seriousness, the ridiculous nature of his arguments should tell you something - that in fact there is no defence or justification for the government doing this.

[brevel_monkey]

You are ignorant of the situation, I am not. The difference is, I am forming my judgment from a position of having looked at and analysed lots of evidence. You prefer to just assume that what you want to believe is right.

If Ucci's argument is an argument from ignorance, yours is just an appeal to (your own) authority. Neither really holds any weight.

You posted the document along with a quote that said that claimed these words would 'set off silent alarms' and later said that it is part of a broader government plan to make its citizens afraid of expressing themselves online. However, the particular document involved points to nothing other than the government doing the same style of anonymous social media data gathering that every large company does. So you have not produced any evidence for your claims beyond the appeal to your own authority, which does leave the burden of proof firmly on you.


Personally I wouldn't say 'don't use social media'. I'd just say that you have to be aware that when you post on certain places on the internet, its a public event, which means that everyone (including governments) can see and monitor what you are saying. If you want to post potentially incriminating things in public places, you have to take measures to protect your identity, for example using pseudonyms, posting from internet cafes, and using proxy servers. It's perfectly possible to be anonymous online if you put some effort into it.

I would say that for anyone in England it is sensible to be careful about what you post. England has draconian anti-freedom of speech laws which make it an arrestable offense to post anything on the internet which might be construed as insulting or threatening to someone (a judgement which is made by police people, who are a bunch of idiots). Police have been using this to arrest and charge just about anyone that they don't like. Its not even a conspiracy - its just open fact (Paul Chambers, Kyle Little for example). That's why when I'm in England I take stronger measures to protect my identity by using different pseudonyms linked to non-personal email accounts which I never access from home or from my personal laptop.

[Gobbo]

Citing evidence isn't an appeal to authority. If it is, why cite evidence?

[Gobbo]

Personally I wouldn't say 'don't use social media'. I'd just say that you have to be aware that when you post on certain places on the internet, its a public event, which means that everyone (including governments) can see and monitor what you are saying. If you want to post potentially incriminating things in public places, you have to take measures to protect your identity, for example using pseudonyms, posting from internet cafes, and using proxy servers. It's perfectly possible to be anonymous online if you put some effort into it.

We've stated numerous times now that isn't the point. That is just a statement so obvious it's insulting to think we don't know it.

This is about precedence and predicting future trends based on previous historical actualities. Are people just refusing, or conceptually unable to talk about it in that context? It would appear so.

[Uccisore]

Citing evidence isn't an appeal to authority. If it is, why cite evidence?

The evidence he's cited shows that the Government is watching publicly available websites and social media- which is something private companies and I ASSUME the Government has been doing for at least 20 years, having worked in the industry myself.
What he wants to conclude from this is that there's something to worry about beyond "Stuff you post in public is publicly seen" that any adult should know. That's what brevel is saying is based on an appeal to authority....which I think is charitable. So far I haven't seen SIATD based this on anything, not even anything fallacious, other than the vague impression that if you don't immediately agree with him, you are 'simplifying the issue' or something. I guess it could be an appeal to authority in the sense that we should be worried because SIATD said so, but that's a stretch.

[Uccisore]

This is about precedence and predicting future trends based on previous historical actualities.

A precedent of what? Before you read this (or some other article like this), did you assume the Government wasn't watching websites and other public media? Did anybody assume this? Are you proposing that there could even be a world in which Twitter exists, and governments don't watch it? It's like examining the precedent set by water being wet, or hookers not meaning it when they say you're the biggest they've seen.

Simply put, in the best possible world, the most, free, idyllic universe you can possibly imagine in which Governments exist, and Twitter exists...Governments would be watching what people say on Twitter.

How can you conclude precedent from the exceedingly obvious and inevitable?

[Uccisore]

You are ignorant of the situation, I am not. The difference is, I am forming my judgment from a position of having looked at and analysed lots of evidence. You prefer to just assume that what you want to believe is right.

If Ucci's argument is an argument from ignorance, yours is just an appeal to (your own) authority. Neither really holds any weight.

I think an argument from ignorance is the perfect way to respond to a lack of evidence, especially since my only point is "This is not a big deal". Yes- I think it's not a big deal because what SIATD provided in his OP, and what he subsequently argued, fails to show that it is...I suppose you could see that as a kind of ignorance, but what else am I supposed to do? I don't have any evidence to present that isn't implicit from a grade-school understanding of what a Government is, what the internet is, and what Twitter is. :/

[Gobbo]

This is about precedence and predicting future trends based on previous historical actualities.

A precedent of what?

Doing things legally instead of simply doing them illegally. Legal precedence sets social trends because people then are afraid of being in trouble with the law. It's different if you know everything is simply being recorded; it's legally monitored and then read by actual people, that will alter the entire landscape all of society. Left unchecked this will create a culture that is afraid to talk truthfully, and self-censors themselves. History has shown this type of society is horrifically bad at best, and basically a literal hell at the worst. It turns everything to shit. Every instance of that in history has gone badly. Every single fucking one. This is like the fucking 14th time in this thread alone me or Siatd has clarified this point. It's like you're either not reading properly, or you are incapable of realizing why this point actually matters. I'm not sure how to convey the seriousness of it beyond saying what I just said.

Before you read this (or some other article like this), did you assume the Government wasn't watching websites and other public media? Did anybody assume this?

No. No one assumed that. Please just stop talking about that altogether. It's completely irrelevant.

Are you proposing that there could even be a world in which Twitter exists, and governments don't watch it?

No.

It's like examining the precedent set by water being wet, or hookers not meaning it when they say you're the biggest they've seen.

Saying things like this leads me believe that you don't understand the difference between illegal monitoring and actual laws being passed that invariably change the fabric of communication online for, in a very substantial way, the worse, for every person on earth who isn't the 1% of society that the government represents. Do you understand the difference, or are you saying there is no functional difference?

Simply put, in the best possible world, the most, free, idyllic universe you can possibly imagine in which Governments exist, and Twitter exists...Governments would be watching what people say on Twitter.

Please show me where me or Siatd said that the problem is that the government exists, or that Twitter exists. That's so fucking stupid I doubt you even actually believe either of us think that.

How can you conclude precedent from the exceedingly obvious and inevitable?

No, look, nevermind.

[brevel_monkey]

You are ignorant of the situation, I am not. The difference is, I am forming my judgment from a position of having looked at and analysed lots of evidence. You prefer to just assume that what you want to believe is right.

If Ucci's argument is an argument from ignorance, yours is just an appeal to (your own) authority. Neither really holds any weight.

Citing evidence isn't an appeal to authority. If it is, why cite evidence?

SIATD fully admitted that the one piece of evidence he posted on this thread (the OP document) is not sufficient evidence for the claims he is making.

The only other 'evidence' he has posted is an appeal to his own authority on the subject. I specifically quoted an example (above) of SIATD appealing to his own authority. I did not say that citing evidence was an appeal to authority. Don't make things up.

This is about precedence and predicting future trends based on previous historical actualities. Are people just refusing, or conceptually unable to talk about it in that context? It would appear so.

So far the strongest form of argument I can see on this thread is a vague assertion that religion once was used to control the world, and therefore technology will be used to do so in the future. This is not really an argument I consider worth paying much attention to. SIATD also talked about his extensive knowledge of the intelligence and of other evidence that supports his claim, but he has been no more specific than just to state that the evidence exists and he has analyzed it, which on its own is not very convincing.

[Gobbo]

I did not say that citing evidence was an appeal to authority. Don't make things up.

My mistake.

[Gobbo]

So far the strongest form of argument I can see on this thread is a vague assertion that religion once was used to control the world, and therefore technology will be used to do so in the future.

Umm.. not really. I mean, I'm talking about societies like Soviet Russia and other places that had the public turned on itself, and with 50% employed just to watch the rest. The Soviet culture was an experiment. One that succeeded fairly well I might add. This isn't some ancient religion thing; we're talking about the re-emergence of something that was perfected in the 80's.

Come on. This isn't hard to get. Sometimes I get the feeling people are just playing dumb for some trolly reason. Where in the outerwordly fuck would you get the idea from either of us that we're talking about religion? I mean... answer that.

[Gobbo]

I just did a crtl F and the only instance of religion of I got was in the last 2 posts: yours and mine above this one.

So, again, are you just trying to mess this conversation up or what? Why would you say this is about religion?

[SIATD v2]

You are ignorant of the situation, I am not. The difference is, I am forming my judgment from a position of having looked at and analysed lots of evidence. You prefer to just assume that what you want to believe is right.

If Ucci's argument is an argument from ignorance, yours is just an appeal to (your own) authority. Neither really holds any weight.

Not per se, no. The difference is that an argument from authority can be successful if one makes a case for the authority in question. An argument from ignorance is always a failure.

You posted the document along with a quote that said that claimed these words would 'set off silent alarms' and later said that it is part of a broader government plan to make its citizens afraid of expressing themselves online. However, the particular document involved points to nothing other than the government doing the same style of anonymous social media data gathering that every large company does.

I am not disputing how widespread this is. I am disputing where it is headed, given where it has come from. It's like you're driving down a road towards a city run by criminal gangs, and along the way you pass through a series of small towns, each progressively worse and more criminally violent than the last, but with the shift being so gradual that you barely notice it. This document is a sign post on that road, and just as you might say 'this signpost points to a town that isn't THAT bad, so there's no evidence that we're heading towards a city that's REALLY THAT bad', one can say the same about this.

It would pretty silly to do so, but one can do it if one likes.

So you have not produced any evidence for your claims beyond the appeal to your own authority, which does leave the burden of proof firmly on you.

Fine.

Personally I wouldn't say 'don't use social media'. I'd just say that you have to be aware that when you post on certain places on the internet, its a public event, which means that everyone (including governments) can see and monitor what you are saying. If you want to post potentially incriminating things in public places, you have to take measures to protect your identity, for example using pseudonyms, posting from internet cafes, and using proxy servers. It's perfectly possible to be anonymous online if you put some effort into it.

No, it isn't. The whole thing is designed as a spying network. Think about where modern computing came from - spying agencies in WW2. Codebreakers. People whose entire job was based around understanding other people's communications, even when they were encrypted. You think that anonymity is possible on a system set up by military and intelligence agencies specifically for the purpose of spying on vast numbers of people? That's like saying if you use a fake name on facebook that the huge intelligence profile they build up on each member isn't an invasion of your privacy because it'll have the wrong name on the file.

Though as I said above, this isn't about them watching us, as such. It's about the slow move to us watching ourselves. You already see it in all kinds of culture - people daren't go against the crowd and say that in truth Jonny Depp is a paranoid, alienated billionaire egotist who does the same acting tricks in every film. Given the close and deliberate parallels between political figures, particularly permanent ones like the Queen, and pop culture celebrities it is only a couple of steps before people feel they can't go against the crowd and criticise the Queen. We already see a huge amount of deference to the spectacle of her wealth and power. Who else would have the BBC broadcasting several hours a day, four days running, to celebrate them being in their job for 60 years. And the complaints filed against the BBC for this were either saying that it was boring or that the commentary wasn't very good. Almost no-one complained that public money taken by force from almost every house in Britain was going to pay for a massively expensive project to pay lip service to the richest person in the country who could pay for all this herself, thousands of times over, but gets it for free.

Where does this come from, ultimately? All kinds of social control mechanisms are in place, watching social media is just one part of it, though an important one, because it has taken over from the mainstream media in being at the forefront of opinion-forming. Put simply, you get the news on twitter earlier than you get it on the BBC. Newspapers are basically dead. Understanding the mechanisms is important, but understanding the mentality and morality behind it, which is very deliberate and premeditated, is far more important.

I would say that for anyone in England it is sensible to be careful about what you post. England has draconian anti-freedom of speech laws which make it an arrestable offense to post anything on the internet which might be construed as insulting or threatening to someone (a judgment which is made by police people, who are a bunch of idiots). Police have been using this to arrest and charge just about anyone that they don't like. Its not even a conspiracy - its just open fact (Paul Chambers, Kyle Little for example). That's why when I'm in England I take stronger measures to protect my identity by using different pseudonyms linked to non-personal email accounts which I never access from home or from my personal laptop.

I say do the opposite - force them out into the open with this by being as blasphemous and threatening as you can be. If you censor yourself because of what they are doing then they've won. The way to disrupt this is to make them have to move faster and on a larger scale than they'd like, which then creates a backlash. This sort of thing only really works if you adopt a slow mission creep, an incremental approach. Well, that's true for the NATO bloc, less true elsewhere. Some places you can use the revolutionary approach where you shift society much more quickly. The answer to this sort of Fabian, gradual, incremental shift is to force them out into the open, to dictate the pace of change ourselves rather than to let them dictate it.

And that's without even getting into the FBI informants inside Anonymous angle to this.