/mlpol/ - My Little Politics

>>369093
That's what the WEF and UN wants.

It astounds me how it's socially acceptable to call anonymous speech a "national security" threat.

>>369097
>national security
It is the same than "our democracy" being "our criminal operation".

>>369098
She literally said "national security".
The point being that words can be a threat.

>>369099
>The point being that words can be a threat.
A threat to (((their))) kleptocracy.

>>369100
Sure.

>>369100
I think she was citing the concept of foreign propaganda influencing elections, but if course the actual target is Americans.

>>369103
>the actual target is Americans
Actually they are aiming to the whole world peasantry, the international (((oligarchs))) are loosing the narrative's control and want to re-take it by force.

>>369108
Other countries already have their own laws policing internet speech.

>>369110
Yeah. They are plugging the holes, especially in those troublesome places like the US (for them) where free speech is still allowed.

>>369114
>They are plugging the holes
Not yet.
Nikki Haley has no chance of being president anyway. Plus, the crap she's proposing is actually impossible to implement because doing it the way she described would make the internet unusable. She may as well be advocating for shutting down the internet.

>>369115
>the crap she's proposing is actually impossible to implement because doing it the way she described would make the internet unusable.
Oh boy, (((they))) already have a plan.
Being smartphones pervasive enough, the normies have brought our undoing. Soon, to be granted access to any website, Cloudfare will be showing a QR code to scan with those electronic leashes known as smartphones.

>>369116
That's not really tenable, since a lot of the dark net wouldn't be viable that way, and companies rely on those sites to do business.
What's more likely is that the largest social media platforms will require verification. They don't need to control the whole internet, just the parts normies use. That way they know anyone who uses alternative platforms is a dissident.
But still, even that much I doubt, because non-verified accounts are used all over.Glowniggers like their bot farms, and don't want to have to explain it to Twitter jannies every time they produce a fresh batch of ten million fake users. All the major tech platforms are against this too, because it would hurt their profits.
What's more concerning isn't that they'd do what Nikki Haley described, but that she described it in the first place. It's going to put public pressure on tech platforms to censor content, and/or create precedent to monitor online speech in less-overt ways.

>>369118
Smartphones have associated an individual's name, physical address, and most of them a bank account to pay for the service.
Obvious enough.

>>369119
What's that to do with what I just said?

>>369120
What you said are reasons why it would not work or be impractical. What I said is why would work right out of the bat.

>>369121
No, it wouldn't, because you'd have to scan the QR code for thousands of dark net sites, most of which don't have a user-friendly interface. It would kill businesses. They don't want that; they need that internet infrastructure to do banking and whatnot.

>>369121
>right out of the bat
Basically every website on the Internet would have to change the way it works from the ground up. It would require a completely new internet.

>>369122
>it wouldn't, because you'd have to scan the QR code for thousands of dark net sites
>Tor
Dude, do you even know how internet nodes and Cloufare are structured? More yet, do you know how a phone scan an image and transmit that data? Tor makes no difference.

>>369123
>Basically every website on the Internet would have to change the way
You have no idea what are you talking about. Most sites need Cloudfare to operate.

>>369124
>Tor
Where did I mention Tor? I know how cloudfare and QR codes work. What I'm talking about is the majority of websites that aren't made for civilian interface.
>>369125
I know that. What I'm saying is that every site would have to change it's structure to verify and display all of its users, as Nikki described. I spent most of last week building a website for my company, and implementing that would basically be back to square 1.
>You have no idea what are you talking about.
Holy shit, you are so full of it.

>>369126
>I know that. What I'm saying is that every site would have to change it's structure to verify and display all of its users, as Nikki described.
I guess you never setup a website, leave alone to operate it. Cloudfare is a man-in-the-middle, not tweaking necessary. Damn these normals!
>as Nikki described
Allow me to correct you.
As that foreign race alien described.

>>369127
>I guess you never setup a website, leave alone to operate it.
Didn't I just say I did that last week?
Have (You) ever set up a website?

>>369128
C'mon, now you want to talk about to redirect traffic to the Claudfare boottrap?

>>369127
>not tweaking necessary
Oh really, how am I supposed to display the verified information of every user of my site, without adding the ability for users to see that information? It's supposed to just magically appear on its own?
Cloudfare may know who's going on, but Nikki wasn't talking about that. She was talking about all media users being publicly visible with their information.

>>369130
>how am I supposed to display the verified information of every user of my site
Because you hire Cloudfare to tell your ISP to redirect the traffic for you.

>>369131
And how would visitors of the site see that information without my input?

>>369132
Enough. You should study how http, ftp, udp, etc protocols works.

>>369133
I know all of that works. I did it last week, ffs.
Are you intentionally misinterpreting what I'm saying?

The narrative is everything.
https://twitter.com/RealCandaceO/status/1717912048502267962

>>369135
You know that you cannot corral an anon that refuses to be corralled. Right?

>>369137
When the anon in question clearly has no idea what the fuck they are talking about yet refuses to admit it it tends to make “corralling” them difficult.

>>369138
That anon wanted to take me into his comfort zone. Obviously that was denied.

>>369139
What comfort zone? You clearly don’t understand the subject you are attempting to lecture on and you should learn to listen to people who do.

>>369137
Wtf do you mean by "corral"?
>>369139
Take you where? What are you even talking about?

>>369139
Stop retarding.
To send information on the internet the host data as to be changed in some way either in transit or where it's stored.
<public accountability
Means NEW information has to be done by every site, for other normal fags to see and access.
Not your personal connection to your ISP or cloudfuck, but random well jumping Timmy wanting to know your location.
They have that, but Timmy does not. They want to give that to Timmy.
There's a great many ways to do any of this crap and I'd loath to give any of them a great efficent easy to use idea.
The reason why >>369115
Is right is that low IQ dipshits look at anyone who's fancy and they go over to unga bunga.
Instead of having to search twenty minutes for a semi-public figure it'll take ten seconds for even recluses. Banks and ISPs ect. have it, general public doesn't.
Corporate accounts would be a fucking toss up on if or how they would even touch that.
Most corporate infrastructure is fucking ancient and nearly nobody know how it ticks.
In anycase
>>369133
That's the fucking wrong response because you miss the point.
>>369126
This one makes sense because he understands the topic.
However there are ways to more or less embed more content than the host provides, but that would stress either the host, the middle-man, or the user.
The ways they could implement this can be done.
And just and many if not more ways to fuck it all up. Instead of it being implemented well it's bloated and slows everything to a crawl.
Making everyone use it lose loads of money!
From ancient machines to mom-and-pop machines the shear bloat potentially would grind nearly all computer use to a halt.
>>369116
>>369119
That's one way, but not efficent or reliable.
>>369131
That's an even more retarded way of doing it.

If I know the government as I expect it to operate they're going to implement some retardation so I can't discount what you've said, but doing it that way means they open everyone up to man in the middle attacks and information phishing to the widest easiest extent.

>>369143
>f I know the government as I expect it to operate they're going to implement some retardation
They already initiating it.
https://gab.com/NeonRevolt/posts/111412987574229009

>>369144
Cont.

>>369144
>>369145
That's a different thing. Bad, but not what Nikki Haley was talking about.

>>369143
Basically this whole message.

Right now, there's a big push from the government to reign in the internet to make it easier to censor/control/monitor, but that push is coming from incompetent politicians who really don't know how the Internet works at all, or how their proposals would basically destroy the internet as we know it. Big tech, as pozzed as it is, is pushing back, because they make a lot of money off of the internet and they don't want to destroy/cripple their business just so that they can reign in a few shitposters: they benefit from keeping the internet mostly-free.

>>369144
>>369145
This is all about regulatory rules and legislation. It's alarming, but it doesn't address any of the technical issues we're talking about.

>>369147
>there's a big push from the government to reign in the internet to make it easier to censor/control/monitor
>that push is coming from incompetent politicians who really don't know how the Internet works at all
Basically this.

>>369148
>technical issues
Well, it looks like they might aiming for the money instead.

As many others have noted, she is running under a fake name.

>>369158
Ikr. Ironic.

>>369158
>fake name
Real indian name is Nimrata Randhawa.