tallest skil

macgui said:

Even in the days of actual journalism with actual, educated journalists, objectivity and factual reporting can suffer for the sake of headlines andreadership.

From 1871, even. And from roughly the same time:

There is no such thing, at this date of the world’s history, in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone. The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press? We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities, and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes.

– John Swinton, chief editorial writer, The New York Times, 1860-70

Rayz2016 said:

So has this always been a problem, or did it just become a problem when Apple moved to OLED panels?

LCDs do burn in, despite claims to the contrary. Plasma displays were notorious for this (as were CRT), but Apple never used those in any of its products.

Ah, I have… more on this topic. But first, a quote that you’ll all ignore anyway because it hurts your feelings and goes against the narrative.

No matter how paranoid or conspiracy-minded you are, what the government is actually doing is worse than you can imagine.

 – William Blum, Department of State computer analyst

Long before fake news or “net neutrality” (NN) became major media topics, the US, government was already orchestrating a legal crackdown on anything it would eventually label fake news. NN was just one move in a sequence of events to completely take over the Internet, A sequence that happened so slowly that virtually none noticed it happening at all. After all, NN wasn’t even all that bad, right? Sure, the Internet became a quasi-utility, but it didn’t really affect you. If anything, you got a chance to finally stick it to Comcast! Go you! Right? But is anything ever that simple? Ask yourself why NN came out of nowhere. Why was it so heavily advertised? Who paid for the advertising? And who benefited from it? Now ask yourself what sequence led up to NN and who led it there? Where did the sequence intend to end? Believe it or not, the sequence already came to completion. On Obama’s final month in office, the Internet was quietly nationalized by legislation he signed the day before Christmas Eve. The president himself became legally capable of taking down any website in the United States within minutes. Of course, that was ruined by the election.
This is a long piece–the beginning will cover some material that you already know–but it is crucial to understand the big picture.

1950 - Education
US House of Representatives commissioned the Reese Committee to investigate potential communist influence of domestic NGOs and nonprofits. Head investigator Norman Dodd published a final report, in which he discovered that the Ford, Rockefeller, and Carnegie foundations were actively influencing universities to promote “moral relativism” and “internationalism" to the end of “oligarchic collectivism,” In other words, marxism. Cultural marxism. His report was silenced and the two-year investigation was abruptly shut down.

1980 - Civil Society Sector
The civil society sector is typically understood to be comprised of NGOs and nonprofits that, according to conventional wisdom, engage in humanitarian efforts, human rights advocacy, government accountability, and other international efforts of the sort. But if that was ever true, it isn’t anymore and hasn’t been for decades. By 1980, all of civil society had been taken over by private and state interests, operating as proxies for their agendas. Just as Norman Dodd had discovered. Julian Assange gives the contemporary example of Google Ideas, a think-tank that proxies high-risk endeavors directly for the White House. Google Ideas was heavily involved in the Arab Spring, which was instigated by social media. VP of Stratfor said they have a “covert role in foaming uprisings,” and that “they are doing things the CIA cannot do.”

1990 - Media
Bill Clinton’s Telecommunication Act of 1996 legalized the monopolization of the media, paving the way for a two-decade globalist crusade to consolidate dozens of media outlets into just 6. And now that Disney has purchased much of News Corp, only 5. And just like that, the globalists need only pluck 5 strings to make us dance to their false song. Comcast, Disney, Viacom, Time Warner, News Corp (not anymore!), and CBS. And still shrinking.

2000 - Social Media
This section is best summarized by a quote from a reddit user, quite shockingly. “If you happen to have a right-wing perspective. Google puts your search results on the 10th page, YouTube demonetizes your videos (or removes them entirely), Twitter bans your account, and Facebook censors your posts so they never show up in the news feed.” – Reddit user /spydiggity/

2010 - The Internet
The globalists, having solidified their control over banks, education, civil society, media, and social media, now turn their gaze to the crown jewel of their decades-long pursuit–the Internet itself. Already controlling much of the Internet’s media–and all the social media platforms that propagate it–the only thing left for the globalists to control is the physical infrastructure of the Internet itself. That’s why ISPs are important now. Before Verizon v. FCC, the FCC classified ISPs under Title I of Clinton’s 1996 Telecommunications Act, meaning they acted as private entities with minimal regulation from the government. Separate and unrelated to that classification, the FCC held ISPs accountable to the Open Internet Rules (no throttling, no blocking, no paid-prioritization). Verizon v. FCC changed that, ruling that if the FCC wanted to enforce Open-Internet Rules, they need to reclassify ISPs under Title II as quasi-utilities strictly regulated as “common carriers,” effectively a state-licensed monopoly. The most critical factor here is that under Title ll, ISPs need to apply for broadcasting licenses, which give the government massive leverage over them. There was an insane amount of influence being exerted over Verizon v. FCC by tech companies and their politicians. Netflix allegedly manipulated their own service to frame the ISPs for throttling.

The full extent of the influence is not yet known. It may be that the lawsuit’s outcome was sheer coincidence. Regardless, this was a huge win for the globalists, because now they are one step closer to forcing ISPs to apply for broadcasting licenses and regularly renew them. Without a license, the ISPs go bankrupt. The government can leverage this over them. Remember this, because broadcasting licenses become the globalists most valuable weapon in just one act more of legislation. Three judges presided over the case: two Democrats, one Republican:
Laurence H. Silberman (appointed by Ronald Reagan)
Judith Ann Wilson Rogers (appointed by Bill Clinton)
David S. Tatel (appointed by Bill Clinton)

The Clinton-appointee Democrats ruled in favor of the Title ll classification ruling. The Reagan-appointee partially dissented. No surprise. Now the FCC is stuck between a rock and a hard place. If they want to enforce Open-Internet they have to practically nationalize the Internet, and any company that wants to offer access to the Internet must receive a broadcasting license. The FCC was stumped and couldn’t really figure out what to do next. So Obama came in to save the day. He pressured them to move forward with the Title II classification and give the government sweeping authority over Internet infrastructure. This potentially unpopular move was quickly rebranded with a cute name and sold to the public as “net neutrality.” Surprise! The public is told that they are saving the Internet! But saving it from whom? HAHAHA from the very people who are telling them to save it! Fully by intent, the globalists played both sides and won. They revoked Open Internet in Verizon v FCC, repackaged it, and gave it back to us in a box full of red tape. Now here’s where the story picks up.

Net neutrality invokes Title ll of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to require all ISPs and any company that provides Internet service to register for broadcasting licenses from the government and regularly renew them. Well, what if the FCC doesn’t want to renew them? Ah, but that’s crazy talk! The FCC can’t just revoke broadcasting licenses on a whim! It would be taken to court within seconds! But imagine what happens when you’re appointed by the president as chairman of the FCC… and shortly after you get a call. And that call you get is from whatever said globalist president rules at the time. And that globalist president tells you that a particular ISP needs to have its license revoked because it’s violating federal law. Well, you’d probably say, “Fuck you; I voted for Trump,” and just hang up. But then the office phones start ringing and you get a little nervous because now other government bodies are calling in, all substantiating that yes, in fact, the ISP really is breaking the law. So you hang up, call your lawyer, and ask him to look up all the laws they were talking about to see if the ISP really is violating them. After all, what kind of law would justify such an abuse of power? None, in fact, that you know of. The next thing that will happen is your lawyer will walk into your office, looking pale as a ghost, and hand you a legal document titled Countering Information Warfare Act of 2016 (S.2692).

This is where everything comes together. Beads of sweat start to form on your forehead as you begin reading the Countering Information Warfare Act of 2016 (S.2692). You put it down and look up at your lawyer, realizing why his face is drained of life. It was drained by the paper on your desk. You’re about to ask him a question about the Countering Information Warfare Act of 2016 (S.2692), but you pause, and another thought strikes you.

“Why don’t they just call it The InfoWars Act’?” You look back at The InfoWars Act to read its mission statement:

…counter foreign propaganda and disinformation from our enemies by establishing an interagency center housed at the State Department…

That’s so bizarre, you think to yourself, Usually agencies are created independent from other branches of government, specifically to preserve accountability and dissuade corrupting influences. Why would you bother creating a new independent agency if you’re literally going to house it in the White House? Interagency center… Okay, so it’s a center… of multiple agencies… in the White House…

p. 1399: The head of the Center… shall be appointed by the President.

…that answers directly to the President? Okay? What exactly is it going to do?

…maintain, collect, use, and disseminate records for research and data analysis of foreign state and non-state propaganda and disinformation efforts…

Wait, what? Non-state propaganda? You mean like my evening posts on social media? What the fuck does that mean? Literally everyone on the planet is not a state. And how exactly is “propaganda” defined? Huh, that’s strange… There’s no definition in here. Like they deliberately omitted it so they can just… call it whatever they want. Incredible. You look up at your lawyer. “How the fuck did Obama get this through Congress?” Your lawyer drops another file on your desk. It looks suspiciously familiar. “He didn’t.” The file is titled National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017. “He waited until Christmas Eve and hid it inside of the 3,000 page annual military budget so nobody would notice it.”

Oh shit, yeah, this is that fucking propaganda thing that Obama legalized… “Jesus Christ.” The lawyer flips through the 3,076 pages of the NDAA to page 1,396 (or 1,438 in PDF format): SEC. 1287: GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT CENTER. “This is so much more than just propaganda. Look at what they’re going to be doing.”

Identifying current and emerging trends in foreign propaganda and disinformation, including the use of print, broadcast, online, and social media, support for third-party outlets such as think tanks, political parties, and non-governmental organizations, and the use of covert or clandestine special operators and agents to influence targeted populations and governments in order to coordinate and shape the development of tactics, techniques, and procedures to expose and refute foreign misinformation and disinformation…

“Clandestine special operators? That’s like some Tom Clancy shit!” Not even Tom Clancy would write something like this.

The legislation establishes a fund to help train local journalists…

“But just when it couldn’t get worse… it gets way fucking worse.”

Second, the legislation seeks to leverage expertise from outside government… provide grants and contracts to NGOs, civil society organizations, think tanks, private sector companies, media organizations. and other experts outside the US. government…

They call in their globalist friends from some “totally neutral third-party” and together they can call anyone a propagandist. They can go after literally anybody who’s been flagged by a “third-party” “fact-checker” without having to take them to court. Oh, fuck. Those fact-checkers were there all along for a reason. They started by flooding the Internet with disinformation and then branding the cute term “fake news” to generate a demand for fact-checkers. And then they satisfied the demand that they created. They trained the public to accept the idea of “neutral third-parties” policing online content. Facebook. Twitter. Reddit. Google. All the tech companies–and the White House itself–were planning to use bots to auto-flag-and-censor any content that contradicts the fact-checkers… across the entire Internet. Fucking Snopes. It’s brilliant, really. They control the fact-checkers, the enforcers, and with the passage of Title II, the infrastructure to utilize them. Once a propagandist has been targeted, the President can use absolutely anything in the government to stop them.

The Center will develop, integrate, and synchronize whole-of-government initiatives to expose and counter foreign disinformation operations…

And that’s it, ladies and gentlemen. That’s why passing “net neutrality” was so important. The President uses the “whole-of-government” to suppress information. Thanks to “net neutrality’s” Title II, they can order all ISPs to take down hostile information and any websites that distribute it. If the ISP refuses, their Title II broadcasting license is legally revoked. They can no longer do business. They go bankrupt. And the government buys out their infrastructure. The government can integrate into the ISPs to censor anything, anywhere, at anytime. The ISPs are forced to obey.

STORY TIME IS OVER; THIS IS ACTUALLY REAL.

They could physically shut down your access to the Internet without a court order! Just because someone called you a propagandist! Just because you post on a website they don’t like! They can take down Drudge Report, Breitbart, Voat, and any other right-wing (or even “right-wing”) website that pops up to replace them! They would have done this slowly, over the course of years–like they always do with everything else they’ve done–so that nobody would notice until it’s too late. They could have removed all dissent from the Internet little by little, year by year, and quietly suppress any online reactions. And it was 100% “legal.” They passed every “law” they needed to do it.

YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW LUCKY AMERICANS ARE TO HAVE WON THE 2016 ELECTION, BECAUSE THERE WOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN ANOTHER ONE AGAIN. And now one final quote.

p. 1446: “The Center shall terminate on the date that is 8 years after the date of the enactment of this Act.”

They thought she would win. They thought she would win, and like the titanic infants they are, they wrote it so that–even if they didn’t manage to completely destroy all free speech in 8 years and a Republican–neocon though he would be–won again, he wouldn’t be able to use it against them.

I’ll go ahead and repost this article from after the “net neutrality” shit was originally passed.

The Federal Communications Commission today voted, 3-2, that the Internet will be subject to many of the Title II regulatory provisions of the 1934 Communications Act. Applying Title II laws to broadband means regulating the Internet as a common carrier, akin to the telephone network, and gives significant control of the Internet to the FCC, lobbyists, and industry players. The Title II order and new net neutrality rules have not been released yet, but the thrust of the regulations is clear from commissioners’ statements and media reports. In short, the FCC’s rules represent a giant step backwards to the days of command-and-control of markets.

The FCC’s actions derive in part from the myth that the Internet is neutral. In the evolving online world, the Internet gets less neutral—and better for consumers—every day. Through a hands-off approach from policymakers, the U.S. communications and technology sector has thrived as a supplier of innovation, but Title II rules effectively throw sand in the gears. If the FCC’s rules are not overturned by the courts, the days of permissionless innovation online come to a close. The application of Title II means new broadband services must receive approval from this federal agency. Companies in Silicon Valley will therefore rely increasingly on their regulatory compliance officers, not their engineers and designers. If courts do strike down the FCC’s net neutrality rules for a third time, the FCC should abandon its campaign to regulate the Internet. Instead the Commission should focus on increasing broadband competition across the nation, thereby reducing prices and increasing the availability of new broadband services. There is plenty of work to be done on this front, but pursuing Title II net neutrality rules distract the Commission and Congress from spearheading a pro-consumer innovation agenda.

In view of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) vote on February 26 to regulate the Internet under Title II of the New Deal–era Communications Act, it is critical to understand what these “net neutrality” rules will and will not do. Columbia Business School professor Eli Noam says net neutrality has “at least seven different related but distinctive meanings….” The consensus is, however, that net neutrality is a principle for how an Internet Service Provider (ISP) or wireless carrier treats Internet traffic on “last mile” access — the connection between an ISP and its customer. Purists believe net neutrality requires ISPs to treat all last-mile Internet traffic the same. The FCC will not enforce that radical notion because networks are becoming more “intelligent” every year and, as a Cisco network engineer recently put it, equal treatment for all data packets “would be setting the industry back 20 years.”

Nevertheless, because similar rules were twice struck down in federal court, the FCC is crafting new net neutrality rules for ISPs and technology companies. Many of these Title II provisions reined in the old Bell telephone monopoly and are the most intrusive rules available to the FCC. The net neutrality rules are garnering increased public scrutiny because they will apply to one of the few bright spots in the US economy — the technology and communications sector.

As with many complex concepts, there are many myths about net neutrality. Five of the most widespread ones are dispelled below.

Myth #1: The Internet Has Always Been Neutral

Reality: Prioritization has been built into Internet protocols for years. MIT computer scientist and early Internet developer David Clark colorfully dismissed this first myth as “happy little bunny rabbit dreams,” and pointed out that “[t]he network is not neutral and never has been.” Experts such as tech entrepreneur and investor Mark Cuban and President Obama’s former chief technology officer Aneesh Chopra have observed that the need for prioritization of some traffic increases as Internet services grow more diverse. People speaking face-to-face online with doctors through new telemedicine video applications, for instance, should not be disrupted by once-a-day data backups. ISPs and tech companies should be free to experiment with new broadband services without time-consuming regulatory approval from the FCC. John Oliver, The Oatmeal, and net neutrality activists, therefore, are simply wrong about the nature of the Internet.

Myth #2: Net Neutrality Regulations Are the Only Way to Promote an Open Internet 
Reality: Even while lightly regulated, the Internet will remain open because consumers demand an open Internet. Recent Rasmussen polling indicates the vast majority of Americans enjoy the open Internet they currently receive and rate their Internet service as good or excellent. (Only a small fraction, 5 percent, says their Internet quality is “poor.”) It is in ISPs’ interest to provide high-quality Internet just as it is in smartphone companies’ interest to provide great phones and automakers’ interest to build reliable cars. Additionally, it is false when high-profile scholars and activists say there is no “cop on the beat” overseeing Internet companies. As Federal Trade Commissioner Joshua Wright testified to Congress, existing federal competition laws and consumer protection laws — and strict penalties — protect Americans from harmful ISP behavior.

Myth #3: Net Neutrality Regulations Improve Broadband Competition
Reality: The FCC’s net neutrality rules are not an effective way to improve broadband competition. Net neutrality is a principle for ISP treatment of Internet traffic on the “last mile” — the connection between an ISP and a consumer. The principle says nothing about broadband competition and will not increase the number of broadband choices for consumers. On the contrary, net neutrality as a policy goal was created because many scholars did not believe more broadband choices could ensure a “neutral” Internet. Further, Supreme Court decisions lead scholars to conclude that “as prescriptive regulation of a field waxes, antitrust enforcement must wane.” Therefore, the FCC’s net neutrality rules would actually impede antitrust agencies from protecting consumers.

Myth #4: All Prioritized Internet Services Are Harmful to Users
Reality: Intelligent management of Internet traffic and prioritization provide useful services to consumers. Net neutrality proponents call zero-rating — which is when carriers allow Internet services that don’t subtract from a monthly data allotment — and similar practices “dangerous,” “malignant,” and rights violations. This hyperbole arises from dogma, not facts. The real-world use of prioritization and zero-rating is encouraging and pro-consumer. Studies show that zero-rated applications are used by millions of people around the globe, including in the United States, and they are popular. In one instance, poor South African high school students petitioned their carriers for free — zero-rated — Wikipedia access because accessing Wikipedia frequently for homework was expensive. Upon hearing the students’ plight, Wikipedia and South African carriers happily obliged. Net neutrality rules like Title II would prohibit popular services like zero-rating and intelligent network management that makes more services available.

Myth #5: Net Neutrality Rules Will Make Broadband Cheaper and Internet Services like Netflix Faster
Reality: First, the FCC’s rules will make broadband more expensive, not cheaper. The rules regulate Internet companies much like telephone companies and therefore federal and state telephone fees will eventually apply to Internet bills. According to preliminary estimates, millions of Americans will drop or never subscribe to an Internet connection because of these price hikes. Second, the FCC’s rules will not make Netflix and webpages faster. The FCC rules do not require ISPs to increase the capacity or speed of customers’ connections. Capacity upgrades require competition and ISP investment, which may be harmed by the FCC’s onerous new rules.

After the President’s announcement Monday morning on net neutrality, Mercatus research fellow Brent Skorup, who specializes in telecom issues, provided initial reaction.

“It does not require a law degree to question the wisdom of imposing eighty-year-old rules intended for the government-blessed monopoly telephone network on the competitive, dynamic Internet. If the FCC—an independent regulatory agency—does what the President envisions, the change will represent a stark reversal of decades of deregulatory Internet policy pursued by Congress and FCC commissioners of both political parties. The application of Title II—sometimes called utility or common carrier regulation—would result in value-destroying government oversight of the Internet. Among other damaging effects, broadband Internet would be subject to rate regulation, taxes, and fragmented regulation by state commissions. Further, many advocates who cheer this announcement have made no secret that their aims stretch beyond economic regulation of the Internet. They also seek government oversight of media, websites, and political speech online. To that end, Title II instantly politicizes the Internet and puts significant power over this dynamic technology in the hands of unelected FCC officials, lobbyists, opportunistic industry players, and well-funded activists.

“Market participants in Silicon Valley and at technology companies would increasingly rely on their risk-averse regulatory compliance officers instead of their creative engineers and designers. The complex Title II proceedings that ensue will be largely invisible and unintelligible to the public and their representatives in Congress. It would be a mistake to apply Title II’s stultifying provisions to one of the few bright spots in U.S. economy—technology and Internet services. The President’s announcement is puzzling because the political consensus is that the 1934 Communications Act should be retired in favor of modern, flexible laws that place consumers—not industries—at the forefront. Title II would impair the creative destruction that makes the U.S. technology sector a boon to consumers and the envy of the world.”

Though the economy has improved only in fits and starts over the past few years, one bright spot remains constant: The technology and communications industry. Part of this success is because Silicon Valley and the tech sector aggressively develop popular consumer products before bureaucrats and lawmakers have time to delay them. Wisely, or perhaps coincidentally, Congress has treated the Internet with benign neglect. However, there is a well-funded contingent in the net neutrality movement seeking to increase Federal Communications Commission oversight of the Internet. These net neutrality proponents are – to paraphrase William F. Buckley Jr. – standing athwart the history of technology yelling, “Stop!” Their backward-looking approach would revive large parts of telephone regulations from the 1934 Communications Act. Their goal is to persuade the FCC to reinterpret the law and apply monopoly-era telephone regulations to today’s broadband providers. Net neutrality advocates conjure up a bogeyman that ostensibly threatens startups and consumers. Their cramped worldview does not see tremendous possibilities in lightly regulated broadband and they oppose the FCC’s current hands-off approach to the Internet.

How about Bertrand Serlet returning to heading OS X development next…