LOL. There's been coverage on WikiLeaks no doubt. But there hasn't been much coverage one what's contained inside of WikiLeaks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
Censorship -- the control of the information and ideas circulated within a society.
Printable View
LOL. There's been coverage on WikiLeaks no doubt. But there hasn't been much coverage one what's contained inside of WikiLeaks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
Censorship -- the control of the information and ideas circulated within a society.
And no, you can't go on WikiLeaks. Only mirror sites that are re-hosted by, for the most part, Anonymous. The original is shut down.
Just because we aren't holding book burning rallies does not mean there's no censorship in this country.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
It's also the atmosphere of our media. There is no journalistic integrity. No one is hunting real stories. They provide a wash, nothing more. Have you ever watched Outfoxed? Its not about blocking the real stories, they know if you block them people will seek them out. They just don't report the real stories or only provide perspectives that favor financial institutions. What's worse, they fill every inch of free space with commentators to help hammer this narrow perspective home. Just because Federal Law does not condone censorship does not mean it doesn't exist.
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by jarrhead
cen·sor·ship
noun /ˈsensərˌSHip/
The practice of officially examining books, movies, etc., and suppressing unacceptable parts
Key word: SUPPRESSING
Choosing not to report something isn't censorship. Censorship is when you try to report something but are blocked by an official party.
WikiLeaksQuote:
Originally Posted by jarrhead
What does any of that have to do with censorship? There is freedom of the press in the West. If the private media choses to spread disinformation, either to appear sensationalist or whatever, then that is not censorship. Censorship is when you are trying to say something but are prevented.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
Censorship is much bigger than just the news. In places where it exists, it is found in books, movies, music, internet, education, etc. This simply doesn't happen in the West.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
suppressingpresent participle of sup·press (Verb)Quote:
Surpressing UNACCEPTABLE PARTS
1. Forcibly put an end to.
2. Prevent the development, action, or expression of (a feeling, impulse, idea, etc.);
Basically, preventing the spread or SURPRESSING the knowledge of unacceptable things, such as what we find with wikileaks.
Nevermind then. I was wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
Yet Wikileaks is not suppressed, and we haven't even yet put into question the legality or morality of publishing stolen sensitive government material.
Well, first off, they're FIGHTING censorship, so yeah, unnacceptable things are NOT going to be surpressed by anonymous.. So what's your argument about WikiLeaks not being surpressed?
Second, it's OBVIOUSLY illegal. They're questioning that too.
Morality.. it's anonymous. They don't care. Lol. The ends justify the means for AnonOps, as long as it is peaceful resistance.
Nobody is suppressing Wikileaks, so what are you complaining about. You can still hop on your computer and go to the website. If you were in China and they chose to blacklist it, you wouldn't be able to do that... Now that's censorship.Quote:
Originally Posted by jarrhead
So if it's clearly illegal, do you think it was inappropriate for corporations like paypal, amazon and mastercard to pull their support of Wikileaks?Quote:
Second, it's OBVIOUSLY illegal. They're questioning that too.
What a short-sighted knee-jerk reaction it was to attack these guys for trying to preserve their business integrity...
Yes, we've established that the bulk of Anonymous are immature teenagers. I'm talking about the morality of leaking these documents.Quote:
Morality.. it's anonymous. They don't care. Lol. The ends justify the means for AnonOps, as long as it is peaceful resistance.
I also find it hilarious that an organization who's main tenant is anonymity is fighting for transparency :lol:... bunch of hypocrites.
Go for it. Come up with an idea, plan it out, spread the word, and wait for others to join in and support it. That's how it works, it's not an organization that holds meetings where they schedule their tasks for the week.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
I can't tell if you're being serious when you say "they." You and I are part of Anonymous. Anyone who writes in a bathroom stall is a part of Anonymous. Anyone who calls 911 or Crime Stoppers from a payphone is a part of Anonymous. Anyone capable of doing or saying anything anonymously is a part of Anonymous. This pseudo-organization doesn't revolve around 4chan, the concept has been around for ages.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
Mastercard and Visa are creditors, their business integrity can only be preserved by allowing people to use them for the things they want to fucking buy or contribute to. If they choose not to allow people to fund something that's a policy decision that effects everyone on an international level. In all practical purposes they made a discriminatory law against wikileaks by with-holding funding. You can choose not to serve someone in a restaurant, but you can't choose not to serve them because they're black. That's what happened.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
I was being sarcastic by pointing out that Anonymous should fight for other civil liberties that we already have.Quote:
Originally Posted by GavinGill
Anonymous, while very loose and open, is still an independent entity. It most certainly has a leadership/hierarchy. Who do you think made those videos? It's a thing, not a concept. I am not part of Anonymous.Quote:
I can't tell if you're being serious when you say "they." You and I are part of Anonymous. Anyone who writes in a bathroom stall is a part of Anonymous. Anyone who calls 911 or Crime Stoppers from a payphone is a part of Anonymous. Anyone capable of doing or saying anything anonymously is a part of Anonymous. This pseudo-organization doesn't revolve around 4chan, the concept has been around for ages.
:eh:Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
Are you saying Wikileaks is black?
That's why I replaced it with "X." :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
Honestly, anyone can make a video in the name of Anonymous if the idea has enough supporters. Hell, even if it doesn't have any. The videos you're referring to are from AnonOps; and yes, there's some form of leadership there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
Anonymous as a whole, no. Splinter groups like AnonOps and Lulzsec, yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
you're-a-part-of-Anonymous-aren't-you-squidward?.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
I'll fight you, mon amis. :P
Well they are pretty cool, plus they're engaged in illegal activities... I kid, I kid. :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
This is unrelated, but blame Gavin and Spartiate :P They made me remember this:
Dumb Things White People Secretly Suspect About Other Races | Cracked.com
Yeah, kind of. It was a sort of deal where it's right and wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
I may sound like I'm contradicting myself because my choice of words wasn't the greatest earlier in this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
As you stated, they fight for transparency. (as well as against censorship)
WikiLeaks was more of a transparency issue, but became censorship as well when they attempted to shut down and blah blah blah.
And while it is hypocritical, they don't really have a choice. If they gave out all their names there would be no possibility to fight peacefully.
Australia tried to do this recently. One of the main reasons it didn't pass is because of Anonymous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
America is also coming up with plans to implement a similar internet filter.
Your perceived freedoms mean nothing if you don't fight for them.
That was full of Lulz..Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhaylin
Quote:
I'd suicide the shit out of myself the first time Reddit failed to load."
This reminds me of the Australian government vs Anonymous in Operation Titstorm.Quote:
Originally Posted by tommo
Operation Titstorm was hilarious
Absolutely.Quote:
Originally Posted by [SomeGuy]
Remember when AT&T blocked 4chan?
I wasn't aware of Anonymous then, but I wonder how that went.
Ha.
Well, 4chan was getting blocked by AT&T, and it garnered a huge negative response. /b/tards trolled the shit out of AT&T's customer service and got the email and address of AT&T's CEO or something and kept sending requests to know why 4chan was blocked. A bunch of us just spread awareness of it by googling "at&t blocks 4chan" over and over and over and over, so when people typed AT&T, that would come up. Within two days it was back up and AT&T said it was because 4chan was getting DDoS'ed and it was taking a toll on AT&T's network or something. It was a night of excitement/something to do for me while I was on vacation.
I think that's where Anonymous started to get more and more serious with corporations/governments that wanted to control content. Then came Titstorm.
I hopped on in December -- just before they pwned Libya & Egypt.
Really? Guys like Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr. and others have mastered civil disobedience while being in the spotlight. Anonymity is actually working against Anonymous (if they are serious about their "cause"). There is no power behind anonymity and nobody to rally behind, it's like a petition signed with "x's". It's hard to take Anonymous seriously when they aren't even devoted enough to their cause to face their "oppressors" outside the safety and comfort of their internet connection. Fair-weather revolutionaries.Quote:
Originally Posted by jarrhead