My second Facebook thoughtcrime in two weeks!

Punk punks at
Sun Apr 21 00:23:41 PDT 2019

On Sun, 21 Apr 2019 01:55:12 -0400
Steve Kinney <admin at> wrote:

> > 	Even if the group has a legitimate purpose, censorship is unacceptable. But what commonly happens is that censorship allows assholes to be unaccountable and fraudsters to go unchallenged. And unsurprisinly censorship is one the core 'features' of facebook. People LOVE to block and ban their betters because they know they can't never hope to refute them.
> Legitimate:  In accordance with the law. 

	Indeed (and I think we already discussed this)

	When I say "legitimate" I mean in accordance with natural law, not in accordance with the fascist dictates that the group of criminals usually known as 'government' calls 'law'. 
	So, censorship is not legitimate because it's a violation of the natural right to free speech (a right that is not a government granted 'right' or privilege)

> Latin root "leige" meaning
> "Lord" or, in practical terms, one's owner.  

	Do you have a source for that? Latin nominative for law is lex. Also latin for lord is something like dominus IIRC (hence domination, etc)

	I don't think etymology matters too much anyway. The concept of natural law, as opposed to government made and imposed 'law', seems pretty anarchistic to me.

> Probably not a good
> baseline for anarchist value judgments.

	Au contraire... =)

> :o)
> >> As an example, The Facebook has enabled me to distribute hundreds of
> >> copies of this package of documents to receptive readers:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I think that alone makes screwing around with The Facebook a net win.
> > 
> > 
> > 	Well, I don't think that's sound and complete accounting. 
> Customer satisfaction, on the customer's own chosen terms, provides the
> final bottom line.  As long as I continue to consider The Facebook
> useful, I will continue to use it.

	You are of course free to use it =) That doesn't change my overall evaluation of facebook though. 

> I just loaded up The Facebook and switched off all filters.  On The
> Facebook, NoScript indicated that the page had loaded a script from

	I stand corrected then. And I guess govcorp is even more crass than I assumed...

	Anyway, my point remains. Blocking in this case a 3rd party branch of the NSA like google while not blocking  the '1st party' branch facebook seems kinda pointless. 

> > 	Bottom line of course is : once you run malware from something like facebook you can (and should) assume the worst. 
> That would be Javascript all right:  A tangled mess that sometimes slows
> the browser down to a crawl.

	Yep. Five years ago facebook JS malware didn't run well on a machine I comfortably use for 3d modelling and rendering. Crazy. I think I despise javashit 'developers' as much as cops. 

> I only /rarely/ shift out of "mobile"
> mode.  But a keylogger "logs" keystrokes.  The speed at which The
> Facebook populates autocompleted "suggestions" seems to indicate a
> script that compares strings after the last space to a preloaded list on
> the client side, not traffic to and from The Facebook itself.

	The keystrokes can be logged client side and then transmitted in batches. That still is a keylogger. From what I recall there was something that (clearly) suggested to me that the script was operating at the character level(client side). Though maybe I'm misremembering. But even if the clues are not there, the keylogging code can be. 

> And
> presumably, one would intend to transmit anything typed in a Facebook
> web interface to The Facebook anyway...

	Yes, but one would assume that the transmission would happen ONLY after hitting send and would only include the final version of the text. The assumption is wrong though. 

> When I signed up for a Facebook account a few years ago, they pestered
> me daily for months:  Asking for the password to the e-mail account I
> gave them as my contact address.  Their electronic begging letter said
> they would use it harvest the e-mail account's address book, so they
> could spam everyone in it with invitations to contact me on Facebook.

	Haha. Reality is crazier than fiction...

> Naturally, I laughed at that and kept the password out of their busy
> little hands.  Eventually they gave up.
> Turns out a LOT of people must have laughed at that, because later The
> Facebook started asking for new users' e-mail passwords as part of
> "confirming" any new account that someone was setting up.  Then, in what
> sounds like an act of mockery, they displayed the users' contact lists
> to them was they were harvested.  You can't make this shit up 


> >>> 	It should also be self-evident that nobody is ever going to be able to use a NSA-govcorp bulletin board to attack NSA-govcorp in any meaningful way. While you managed to inform a dozen people about the real nature of the society they live in, govcorp used facebook to disinform and manipulate 12 million people (or some such ratio between benefits and harm caused).
> >>
> >> That strikes me as a case of "making the perfect the enemy of the good."
> > 
> > 
> > 	So you are saying that facebook is 'good'?  - I could kinda rest my case here =P
> I would refer readers to an earlier comment I made about anarchists who
> refuse to use the State's resources against the State's interests...

	Yes, that's what we are discussing =P - So in my view the harm caused by something like facebook outweights any benefit that 'we' can derive from it. You still can use it to cause some minor damage to them but the overall balance is way against us.

> :o)
> > 	There isn't any global collapse of the economic system. What's going on is the **exact opposite**. The global, fascist economic system known as multinational govcorp is getting more automated and totalitarian by the minute (things like facebook playing a central role in the process).
> Have you looked at geophysics and material economics much lately?

	Not sure what you mean by material economics, but I've been looking for a while at the economics of global industrial fascism and they look healthy to me. Of course it's toxic for 99% of the world's population but as far as survival of the fascist system itself goes, I'm not seeing any problem. Quite the contrary. 

> The material resources necessary to sustain post-industrial civilization
> have stretched thinner every year since the 1980s and the utilization
> costs (in energy) of what remains has risen fast - the cheap, easy to
> get stuff already got used.  Potable water, phosphates, topsoil,
> petrochemical fuels, copper...  We do have an abundant and rising supply
> of demand, as exponential population growth continues.

	Except, there's no exponential growth. In the last 100 years growth has been rather linear. And it can stop or even go down at any moment. 

	Also, virtually all materials can be recycled and there's no shortage of 'green' industrial fascism, 'green' new deals(TM) 'green' and vastly overpriced electric cars , 'green' this and that. 

	I don't say that to defend the system in any way. Just pointing out that industrial fascism can be 'managed'. 

> Global warming continues at a brisk pace. Drivers include annual
> methane emissions from former northern hemisphere permafrost bogs, and
> massive, newly discovered and Arctic sea floor blowout craters with more
> on the way.  Methane traps heat WAY better than carbon dioxide, and we
> have unlocked the storehouse.
> Warming oceans hold less dissolved oxygen, and anaerobic bacteria have
> started reclaiming old territory already, poisoning it with hydrogen
> sulphide.  "Alarmist" global warming projections do not yet include the
> impact of the constant and accelerating rise of atmospheric methane.
> Take a peek at the Permian Extinction...

	I think most or all of those facts are debatable. Coincidentally I am still waiting for Peter Fairbrother to explain how CO2 freezes in the poles...

	But anyway, a catasthropic change in the weather might wreck industrial fascism, so I hope global warming is real. Though I'm not holding my breath. 

> > 	You know, just like you suggested a few times  that I 'might be' helping the enemy, from my point of view that's what you are doing here to some extent by naively assuming you can beat them at their game using their surveillance tools. 
> I do not recall ever suggesting that I might be "helping the enemy." 

	You suggested more than once that *I* might be. You call it being a "rebel as you're told"  IIRC =)

> As
> a rule I don't have enemies; that kind of thinking leads to irrational
> behavior and cumulative strategic losses.  Example:  Asserting that I
> naively assume I can beat the State at its own game.  That looks like
> Name Calling and a Strawman attack in one sentence.

	I'm concluding from your comments in this discussion that you think you can efectively use facebook against its owners. Am I misrepresenting your views? 

> I do have some skill in semantic games; you may notice that my posts in
> this thread do not make use of the words is, are, was, were, am, be,
> been, or variations on / contractions for same.  

	Oh interesting. No I didn't notice. Usually your writing style (and thinking) seem rather clear/elegant to me. But I think that's more a matter of substance than just avoiding the verb to be =P.

> Called E-Prime, this
> technique makes clear communication easier, and losing arguments harder.

	I  doubt a single stylistic device can achieve all that =P 

> :o)

More information about the cypherpunks mailing list