I don't think that re-publishing a name, which has probably already been re-re-re-re-re-re-re-published thousands of times, could constitute "interfering with a criminal investigation".  But your imagination may differ.              Jim Bell On Saturday, November 9, 2019, 12:47:26 PM PST, Razer wrote: This is your answer and China will stomp you if you INTERFERE WITH A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION too. So will any court system on earth. Get psychiatric help. "Facebook says it is removing mentions of the alleged whistleblower’s name and will revisit this decision if the name is widely published in the media or used by public figures in debate." On November 9, 2019 10:44:33 AM PST, jim bell wrote: https://apnews.com/ad8f2a9b6e424138afcc97fcf2eb29bf I wonder what they mean by "deleting the name"?  Do they mean deleting any posting or comment containing the name 'Eric Ciaramella'?  Or just that name?  Or any posting that says that "Eric Ciaramella is the whistleblower"? This sure sounds like Facebook is adopting the policies of Red China, "The Great Firewall of China". I've got a solution to that problem:  The people who work for Facebook are identifiable, and mortal. Notice that the news source this story came from is "apnews".   How appropriate.              Jim Bell Rr Sent from my Androgyne dee-vice

On November 9, 2019 12:53:03 PM PST, jim bell wrote:

I don't think that re-publishing a name, which has probably already been re-re-re-re-re-re-re-published thousands of times, could constitute "interfering with a criminal investigation".  But your imagination may differ.              Jim Bell

DUDE! We're talking about a federally taxed and regulated (FCC FTC et al) CORPORATION, NOT an individual! If they get a GAG ORDER or whatever it might be called legally, they WILL EXECUTE IT, including any searches and destroys they're capable of if demanded. There was also a bunch of idiots who thought that online proxy service that acted on a court order a few years ago should have 'done a riseup' and taken a fireaxe to their server, but as I said at the top, they're a bunch of idiots. Also note that someday soon the espionage act will be modded to make it a crime to pass on information that you weren't even aware was classified, which is EXACTLY the reason why Julian Asssange claims to have had the inspiration for Wikileaks. Rr Sent from my Androgyne dee-vice with K-9 Mail Rr Sent from my Androgyne dee-vice with K-9 Mail

On November 10, 2019 8:48:12 PM PST, jim bell wrote:

On Sunday, November 10, 2019, 06:40:15 PM PST, Razer wrote:

On November 9, 2019 12:53:03 PM PST, jim bell wrote:

...

I don't think that re-publishing a name, which has probably already been re-re-re-re-re-re-re-published thousands of times, could constitute "interfering with a criminal investigation".  But your imagination may differ.              Jim Bell

...

DUDE! We're talking about a federally taxed and regulated (FCC FTC et al) CORPORATION, NOT an individual! If they get a GAG ORDER or whatever it might be called legally, they WILL EXECUTE IT, including any searches and destroys they're capable of if demanded.

You are merely speculating about a 'gag order'.   Why invent that imaginary factor?   Nobody has received a gag order, or at least they're not talking!!!  (Ha ha ha ha ha....)

You just made my point thanks.

And don't forget Steven Schear's "Warrant Canary": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary      Regularly publish a "non-warrant" announcement, which you stop publishing if a warrant arrives.  

Yeah well no one uses them. Most government now consider them a form of leak and the put you away WITH EVIDENCE YOU PROVIDED PUBLICLY when you stroked the bird, quick, like a bunny.

...

There was also a bunch of idiots who thought that online proxy service that acted on a court order a few years ago should have 'done a riseup' and taken a fireaxe to their server, but as I said at the top, they're a bunch of idiots.

Bad events do happen, sometimes.  

Idiocy is a bad bad thing. Right.

...

Also note that someday soon the espionage act will be modded to make it a crime to pass on information that you weren't even aware was classified, which is EXACTLY the reason why Julian Asssange claims to have had the inspiration for Wikileaks.

Which is one good reason that my Assassination Politics idea needs to be implemented.                  Jim Bell

Sick minds think alike. Too bad sick minds, also known as government officials, have always practiced assassination politics but what's REALLY SICK is capitalizing on the tradition, wanting to be like them and lick their shitstained boots for money, b/c mythical valueless 'currency', bitcoins, that, by the time they're common, will only be used by the rich to hide their wealth from the un-rich, because no one else will be able to afford to use the VERY EXPENSIVE TO OPERATE intertubz as the petro goes byebye. Go on. Tell me the Petro is going to last copiously forever so I can write you off as a danger to the people of the planet and give me a reason to bid on your snuffing.

Ps. I'm not speculating and I'm also not PANDERING TO YOUR MENTAL ILLNESS, Get Psych help. Rr Sent from my Androgyne dee-vice with K-9 Mail

Spoken like the nasty capitalist you are. Wtf are you doing on an Anarchist list child? Rr Sent from my Androgyne dee-vice

On Monday, November 11, 2019, 02:32:00 PM PST, Razer wrote:

Spoken like the nasty capitalist you are. Wtf are you doing on an Anarchist list child?

As far as I can see, "capitalism" and "anarchy" should go quite well together.  You know, "anarcho-capitalist". "Capitalist" should merely mean "crowdsourced capital", although I think it has become (wrongly) used in a way suggesting it is a synonyn for "free market".  (It is not necessarily that.)   I think "free market" requires the possibility of "capitalism". "Capitalism" generally gets a bad name from "crony-capitalism" which is actually a thing.  But you can't have the 'crony' part unless you find the improperly-used power from somewhere, and that is from the government.  Make the government very small, or even non-existent, and there will be very little power that can be misused to support businesses unfairly. Those fools who say, 'Government will protect us from those evil corporations!' need to think again.  Who do they think is ALLOWING those corporations to do what they do?  And can making that government bigger be expected to help, or hurt?                 Jim Bell