Brtish parliament discusses Zig Forums

Because they can't do anything about it, they have no power on the Internet because of it's inherent decentralized nature. Looks at how they were unable to curtail behaviors like piracy or political terrorism, unless they go full China, they have just no way to stop theses. Though it is a real trend that the Internet is becoming more and more centralized, for example using the only same websites owned by big corporations, and thus being heavily regulated by the gov't (like Facebook, Google/YouTube or Twitter) or more recently the widespread use of centralized hosters or "CDN" like CloudFlare (which is what Zig Forums is using btw, so it could get shutdown/spied on this way). Decentralized overlay networks (Tor, IPFS…), websites (hidden services, independant hosting) or even imageboards (pdf related) have always been a technical possibility and completely out of reach for even the most powerful intelligence agencies (as acknowledged by the NSA).

The goal for internet censorship shouldn't be the removal for material but to limit the exposure of vulnerable populations (in this case, white suburban teens/manchildren) to radical (right wing) propaganda. In that sense it is quite doable.

You can't possibly do that without being a prude about most things, how will you separate humor from propaganda?

Go back to 2014.

Yeah and you know that the current governments will label anything radical that isn't neoliberalism. 8ch houses us too, and when it goes so do we (honestly, I think bunkerchan would be popular for all of 2 days and then everyone would fuck off).

Attached: thanks for nothing bobby.png (1045x787, 470.91K)

It's not about banning radical thought so much as it is banning terrorist recruitment. This won't be the last Zig Forums that kills people. There are tons of psychotic vets on the Zig Forumss that will eventually make good on all their boasting, especially as America's influence and power wanes in the coming years. They did the same with ISIS recruitment sites and accounts. Why not do the same with Zig Forums?

Hate speech laws are used against opponents of Israel. Do you think laws suppressing political "radicalism" and "terrorism" won't be used against the left as well?

Mr. Forchan is a ISIS alt-right pedo terrorist.

Why, it isn’t people’s fault if their unattractive.

Even this wouldn’t work, all you’d need to do is use a VPN to get around the great firewall of China.

The only way to do this is to expose these people to radical left wing propaganda.

1. A lot of incels ARENT unattractive. They've just wrapped themselves up in an identity of being unfuckable and turned it into a self-fulfilling prophecy
2. There are a LOT of unattractive people that still get laid dude.
Incels need to get off the computer. It would fix 99% of their problems.

How would you go about doing this?

Neck yourself liberal.

...

go outside and do what?

Not with DPI (Deep Packet Inspection).

I think he’s talking about the fact that, for example, if you watch couple of Jordan Peterson videos on YouTube, you’re bombarded with every far right talking head in the suggestion box

Zig Forums isn't about recruitment to a specific terrorist organization though.

Not even deep packet inspection can overcome most modern forms of encryption in a feasible time, and most (non-free) VPNs encrypt by default.

If people have to buy VPN accounts to view a site then I would consider that site safely quarantined since inpressionable young (in the 15 to 24 age bracket) normalfags will be unlikely to access it.

Then you're effectively segregating the internet by income. This will mean the removal of left-wing websites as well to behind a VPN paywall.

Organizing online is pointless for the left since it robs us of our greatest strength (our overwhelming numbers). Meanwhile fashies are massively over represented due to a combination of always online first world NEETs and shills. Oh and the corporations that more or less control the web are far more favorable to them than to us normally. We can't win online.

Most of the recent mass movements have used the internet to organize protests in some fashion, from the Arab Spring movements to the Gilets Jaunes. Not only that, but without any ability to combat right-wing and capitalist propaganda online, the many people who do use the internet will be affected and discouraged from showing up. Purely online is pointless, sure, but the internet isn't something we can safely derogate and imagine as nonexistent.

The "arab spring" was mostly CIA. It might not have started off that way but that is what it became (thanks in part to the internet funnily enough.) Anyways I'm not saying that the internet isn't good for leftist organization. The problem is that it is even more effective for fascist shit. If we have to sacrifice the internet in order to stop fascists from recruiting in the first world then we should do so. The real left is already heavily censored anyways due to America's de facto control over the internet.

Attached: 1549522381556.png (226x322, 80.28K)

I don't think that's true of the original protests in Tunisia or Egypt, otherwise the CIA would be overthrowing its own bought-off proxies.

Worldwide, I don't think that has been demonstrated. It's simple for individuals, "lone wolves" or whatever, to join or be inspired by right-wing organizations, but it also eases organization for left-wing groups and mass movements, as mentioned. Compared to the latter, organization by the right as well as the "lone wolf" cases are relatively minuscule, even if they do dominate the news.

To some extent and in many countries (not just the US), but not to the extent that left-wing sites are banned from the internet or set behind a de facto paywall in Western countries. As the political dialogue is closer to the right than the left among government officials, sites on the left will suffer the brunt of any attack on internet freedoms. I would think that any ban on online radicalism will leave many "legitimate conservative" right-wing sites largely unaffected (e.g. Breitbart), along with basically all neoliberal propaganda, no matter how radical.

This is impossible, the internet can’t be destroyed. A large part of the economy relies on it’s existence. If the Internet was destroyed millions would become unemployed.

Dumb faggot, hate speech is free speech whether you like it or not. What is considered hate speech is subjective. Angela Eagle would have all criticism of Israel classed as hate speech if she got her way. The rich could possibly class opposition to them as hate speech.

Attached: 1552632817626.jpg (750x750, 60.69K)

Fucking talk to people? It's not hard.

Soon this abomination of a website will end

@dannyocoulson
alignable.com/aledo-tx/coulson-and-associates

A friend made this argument a few nights ago. Legit hope it doesn't happen.

Ok, so let's say that Zig Forums dissapears…
Where would we take refuge?
and most importantly.
What website would Zig Forums infect?

Holy fuck I thought this would never happen.
fucking finally.

Attached: 2EVxWd7_d.jpg (385x367, 13.64K)

You can block VPN protocols (TLS, IPsec, SSH, OpenVPN, WireGuard…) with DPI, but even the most advanced ones like obfuscated Tor pluggable transports such as obfs or scramble are actively filtered.

If the two can be conflated, there is no need for mercy. The greatest humour comes from working around censorship. What we need is a great deal more of it, not less.

The modern internet is already highly segregated by income and it's only going to get worse. What is necessary is not the kindly hand of regurgitated californian ideology, but the state taking the metaphorical and physical sledgehammer to the very servers themselves. There is nothing to be lost.

Stop being an idealist, virgin freak. You are living in the sewer of the Californian ideology, bathing yourself in excreted soylent and silicon chip factory runoff. Imageboards have melted your mind and your idea of freedom is the most nightmarish chrome-and-black gilded cage of all.

...

The object for communists shouldn't be to segregate it further, though. There isn't a single chance that letting the US government and techno-shitheads in California determine the meaning of "radicalism" will improve the left's chances of being heard.

They already do that. The left is already being censored while the right can promote propaganda freely.

And the solution is to make it even worse? It's not as if everyone on the left and all left-wing views have been removed from the internet as of yet. Just because it's bad doesn't mean we should advocate making it even worse in order to "defeat fascism online," which isn't going to happen due to the private and public bodies you're asking to enforce censorship.

Do you really thing that more censorship will change this?

Attached: Brainlit2.jpg (645x729, 39.97K)