PSA: Cloud Ban Everyone! YOU could be next!

Discussion in 'Mail Chat' started by DoldGigga, Aug 8, 2018.

  1. DoldGigga

    DoldGigga VIP

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2011
    Messages:
    737
    Likes Received:
    90
    Trophy Points:
    28
    This should be of interest the non-mouth-breathing patrons of this site...

    Starting earlier this week the "non-existent" deep state had its corporate gatekeepers "de-platform" InfoWars, a very popular independent news and commentary operation. Within hours of each other, a coordinated attack was made by Google (Youtube), Facebook, Spotify, Itunes, and even Amazon to purge InfoWars content and remove them from search results. These are pretty much the biggest/only platforms for engaging people with the social media ghetto. In addition to Infowars, any public personality with opinions to the right of stalin received similar treatment.

    Among the shitbags engaging in this behavior were the cunts over at Mail Chimp, who jumped on the bandwagon with a nebulous "violation of terms of service / your account is now terminated" type of messages.

    The "fake news" narrative going along with this is some nonsense about 'hate speech' and it's pushing their typical commie political garbage. This is the CIA-funded-and-directed 'technocracy' deseperately attempting to consolidate control of the net, by eliminating independent voices altogether. It's not about money; it's about total control of information.

    The point in raising this is to highlight the importance of ELIMINATING the "cloud" from ALL ASPECTS of your internet business. This doesn't just pertain to mailing, it's across the board for anyone who operates businesses online.

    The time to move your operation(s) back to BARE METAL is now, and it needs to be under your direct control where you own the hardware OR you need to hire a trusted admin to handle it for you.

    Cloud Vulnerabilities Include:
    - Web hosting
    - SaaS hosted apps (i.e. anything that uses something like AWS for anything)
    - 3rd party DNS (oh, you thought you were clever using cloudflare? nope.)
    - Payment processing (if you own/run offers it's time to get your own real merchant account and ditch bullshit like stripe)
    - ESP/Mailing (absolutely terribe to be mailing from anything like mailchimp)

    There are many more vulnerabilities that manifest just by virtue of allowing an unknown 3rd party to have full access to your data, your private encryption keys, and other such things.

    If you think going along to get along is going to keep you safe, it won't...but go ahead and test the theory that this is an isolated incident that could never happen to you.

    Separate but Related:
    Remember like 6-7 years ago I suggested that those with the means to do so pool resources and lobby for better laws to protect mailers/marketers (and really all people using the internet as a public communications utility) from exactly this type of thing? Well, nobody was too interested. I'll settle for the sweet taste of vindication.
     
  2. nickphx

    nickphx VIP

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2011
    Messages:
    1,244
    Likes Received:
    414
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    phoenix.
    From what I've seen of that guy's 'independent news and commentary opinion' , the internet didn't lose much.
     
  3. DoldGigga

    DoldGigga VIP

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2011
    Messages:
    737
    Likes Received:
    90
    Trophy Points:
    28
    I dunno @nickphx , you're sounding like a little triggered there. All out of soy drink?
     
  4. nickphx

    nickphx VIP

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2011
    Messages:
    1,244
    Likes Received:
    414
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    phoenix.
    No, I'm not a bubble wrapped snowflake that needs a safe space away from angry words, nor am I scared or hide from differing opinions.
    "Alex Jones's" primary motivation is to gain more viewers to consume his "entertainment". The only reason he wants more viewers is to get more advertising dollars. This has lead to a battle for attention with each headline more outrageous and click baity than the next. I do admire his ability to play his flock of sheep like a well tuned instrument, masterfully strumming the strings of fear and paranoia to his benefit.
     
  5. DoldGigga

    DoldGigga VIP

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2011
    Messages:
    737
    Likes Received:
    90
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Well, that's a very generic assessment of AJ, one that you'd hold if your only exposure to him was indirectly through biased intermediaries who do not want him to exist or be taken seriously. It certainly casts doubt on your implication that you're not one of those deceived sheep, especially if one guy telling the truth (as best he understands it) bends you out of shape to the point where you think the first amendment should not apply to him.

    Are clickbait headlines for news/commentary that is otherwise verifiably accurate your primary basis for being OK with having anyone essentially erased from PUBLIC content distribution platforms? These are platforms who seek liability protection under the CDA by claiming they are public commons. That would include just about all so-called news operations as well as plenty of private entities.

    You may believe that something like this won't or couldn't happen to you...but that doesn't change the fact that very many people who depend on the internet for their livelihood just a few arbitary bans away from being put out of business, with the probability increasing exponentially based on how much of their operation is relying on assets they don't own or have direct control over.
     
  6. nickphx

    nickphx VIP

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2011
    Messages:
    1,244
    Likes Received:
    414
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    phoenix.
    I subject myself to enough of his rhetoric filled hyperbole to realize it wasn't for me..
    I didn't say he shouldn't be able to express his opinion, he's more than welcome to do it.
    Do I agree with the private corporations choosing to silence an unpopular opinion? No.
    The wonderful thing about the internet is that there is more than one way to deliver your message. So if your message is important enough to your followers, they will happily follow.

    Of course the content hosts want protection under CDA, why wouldn't they?
    Unless I'm totally misunderstanding the CDA, what does being protected from liability raised by third party generated content have to do with this situation?
    If the content hosts were held liable for every moron's libelous, distress causing rants .. we would have even less content hosts.

    How does seeking protection under the CDA render a private entity public and subject to first amendment restrictions regarding regulation of speech?

    I've been a dirty spammer for a long time, I am well aware of being run out of business by some random third party that chooses to enforce a blacklist based on some arbitrary bullshit.
     
  7. DoldGigga

    DoldGigga VIP

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2011
    Messages:
    737
    Likes Received:
    90
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Your original statement implies that you're ok with that kind of censorship, now you say you don't agree, which means that if you were sincere you would have just said that up front because my point is not about the content of infowars, it's the fact that it and many other independent news outlets are being blanket censored...

    And no, they're not private companies because they are publicly traded on the stock market (benefit from public capitalization) and they operate as public commons / neutral platforms. Also, there are no prerequisites or fees required for anyone to participate, and they've operated like this for most of their existence.

    FB claims itself to be a neutral platform under the CDA to avoid being classified as a publisher.

    Under the CDA, a publisher classification makes the publisher liable for what is posted/shared on their website in an editorial capacity...so pages of the "Kill Donald Trump" variety could open FB up to criminal charges if they decide they're going to leave those types of pages alone while deleting any pages that support Trump - thus making editorial decisions as a publisher does, not remaining a neutral platform. (I'm sure you know that direct threats of violence are NOT protected speech, and in some instances could be construed as conpiracy to commit murder.)

    They can't have it both ways, but they're trying to and because the CDA isn't specifically worded to deal with this scenario there's enough grey area for the one with more $$$ to win a decision in their favor.

    That sounds very specific. Who libeled and distressed you with their rants?
    Should we bust out the "show me where the bad man touched you" dolly?

    But you're generally OK with that happening, especially if it's not happening to you...is what I gather from your comments...and when @SuperGenii is agreeing with you, you're in a bad bad place.

    Can we at least agree that within the last 10 years the degree to which things are being censored on the internet in general has been ratcheted up exponentially? Email - definitely, but also other forms of media, including privately hosted stuff, is subject to blacklisting of some sort.
     

Share This Page