was it all for nothing?

A little over a decade ago, this fine gentleman broke with institutional brainwashing and revealed all the dirty tricks the five eyes were up to. Everything from the CIA spying on people in WoW to the PRISM program. The public reaction? Well.... nothing. After the initial scandal died down and media pundits were back to flinging chum to satiate the masses, absolutely nothing happened. Today, when I tell people they shouldn't use google chrome or alexa, all I get is an eye roll and the "oh here goes that paranoid kid again." Even those who accept it just sigh and tell me "well, I'm doing nothing wrong. I don't mind them collecting my personal data and you shouldn't worry either." It seems like hacktivism, leaks, and whistleblowing just don't work. People like Juilian Assange thought the people had the wool pulled over their eyes and when they get a dose of the truth, they'll spring to action. Surely, when they are shown the injustice in the world they'd come out into the streets? Wrong. Today, Assange, Snowden etc. are routinely maligned in the press and made out to be Russian agents or conspiracy peddling wackos. The mainstream media went out of their way to hunt down Jack Teixeira and report him to the authorities, so much for "independent" media. Even Wikipedia's Twitter files page was almost deleted because some thought it was "not a noteworthy topic." The movement for privacy and freedom is stronger, use of Linux and Tor have gone up, but unless you can get the public on board you'll end up becoming the digital equivalent of an off the grid yeoman. Maybe the slow disintegration of Twitter and the Reddit mess will change things? I feel sorry for guys like Snowden because he genuinely believed we the people would stand up for him, but we didn't and he sacrificed everything for a public that cares more about shiny new toys than freedom.

Did it actually do nothing? Of course the press is a mouthpiece of the state and is going to convey that impression, but there is now widespread awareness that everything is being tracked and that the feds do not obey the laws constraining their actions. That is a big change. Even though the population is in general authoritarian and spineless enough to lay there and take it (the fuarrrk were you expecting?), there is no longer a veil of absolute ignorance. That's a meaningful change. If everyone knows there's two ladies in the box, it's really nothing special when you saw it in half. We understand that if you want privacy, US companies and related closed tech are a bad bet, and if there is a privacy failure, you can guess a likely cause. Also worth noting that Snowden was fortunately not a self-martyring idiot and did not in fact sacrifice everything, he is not in Guantanamo, was not assassinated, gives regular interviews, and seems to be doing just fine. The spooks got ______ and everyone knows it. It's a clear win, may there be more to come.

Snowden gave us proof of the wrongdoing but he didn't give us a realistic way to stop it. Assange did the same, and then he allowed his organization to be used as a political pawn, which destroyed his credibility. You can't expect people to rise up unless they're organized, have a realistic plan for how to win, and are hurting enough that the risk is worth it. >was not assassinated, gives regular interviews, and seems to be doing just fine. Well sure, although he can't live with his wife & kids.

>>36939 >Well sure, although he can't live with his wife & kids. doesnt he though ? I thought they were all someplace in russia after she moved over there.

forgot video. body too short, body too short, body too short, etc etc etc >>36940 oh, for some reason I remembered him having a wife at the time but I guess they only married after he moved to Russia. So yeah, I think Snowden's story is pure success.

>>36937 Freud once pointed out that when our mind is confronted with information that is too traumatic, it represses that stuff to prevent it from frying our brains and driving us insane. When confronted by the truth, we don't just wake up like Neo in the Matrix, we try not to think about it, we rationalize it, we accept the truth in the depths of our heart but consciously lie to ourselves because it's comforting. That's what Snowden and Assange didn't really understand. Just feed the people the inform and they'll wake up. An informed public will make the informed decision to vote out the bad guys and change the bad policies, as if the elections aren't rigged already. That's where they made their mistake. If you drag a prisoner out of Plato's cave and show him the world outside, he'd probably suffer a mental breakdown or refuse to accept it and want to go back. People absolutely should speak out, but speaking out isn't going to solve everything. The public isn't gonna go to the ballot box and vote out the bad guys, that's just way too wishful. >unless you can get the public on board you'll end up becoming the digital equivalent of an off the grid yeoman. If you approach people and ramble about privacy and the feds, they'll brush you off as a schizo. Remember, it's all about how you approach people. A lot of people just accept that their powerless, and the system thrives on breeding passive nihilists, but there are alternatives to big tech. If you show people how free software can empower them their more receptive than "ohhh the feds are recording your SoykafHub searches." >>36938 Snowden is under constant surveillance by the FSB. Defectors in Russia are stalked and watched 24/7. He's in a virtual prison, which is way better than spending your days in ADX next to Uncle Ted and Ramzi Yousef, but it's a prison nonetheless. Since the CIA plotted to assassinate Assange, I'm pretty sure Snowden is on a kill list and the pro-Ukranian elements that deleted Darya Dugina might try to snuff him out to please Uncle Sam. >>36939 >Assange did the same, and then he allowed his organization to be used as a political pawn, which destroyed his credibility Assange was incredibly arrogant and naive. He was releasing bombshell after bombshell while giving Washington the finger. He reveled in his supa hacka persona and took almost no security precautions. What kind of investigative journalist sleeps around with random women he met online instead of staying at a hotel? He was extremely ignorant of politics too. He didn't seem to really understand how the DNC leaks would lead to Wikileaks being painted as pro-Trump. Well, to be fair, I suppose an Australian wouldn't get the whole Trump Derangement/Enslavement Syndrome and other retarded American mental illnesses.

>>36938 >It seems like hacktivism, leaks, and whistleblowing just don't work They work just fine, the problem is the toxic egotistical spergs who initiate the action are usually soykafty people. Example, snowden was a whiny bitchboy who could't into the military. He also was not the first to come forward about those programs. Manning was a homo and later a tranny who punched his superior in the face in an autistic fit, which got him put in the mailroom where he started data leaking. Asange was a playboy who couln't keep it in his pants and an angry floozy was his downfall (she wasn't an actor, but the gubmint took advantage of her to get to him). His former friends even said he went off the deep end and they distanced themselves from him and his behavior.

>>36964 This is why it's hard for some to take privacy seriously. Sure you have some more realistic and reasonable privacy guides and individuals like Tech Lore, but sadly they don't get enough attention compared to more vocal unhinged people such as Mental Outlaw. When your group's most well known and vocal members are paranoid and toxic, it reflects on the rest of it. Groups like privacy activist, hacktivism, and whistleblowing was tarnished because of people like Asange and have a long way to even get most of its reputation restored.

>>36966 Privacy is totally different than hacktivism. There are many serious and practical guides. Many privacy advocates also might not be doing what they do for the right reasons. Remember how TOR got a political agenda from privacy changed to "free speech" and the devs complained about racism while ignoring CP and criminal activity and content. 4ch was a hacktivist group at times when they would raid people. It wasn't seen as hacktivism, but it was a relatively agreed upon goal against a soykafty person or group as a joke. Hacktivism only became mainstream when people started doing it to be seriously invested in a cause. Asange wanted to be a super world class hackerman and his notoriety mostly stems from others who GAVE him information. Most of wikileaks most well known leaks did not come from him, he just decided what information he would put on his site even when people cautioned that if he put unredacted files, civilians would be killed for talking to americans on the record. Whistleblowers in other countries outside the USA often die horrible deaths or become so notorious the government can't touch them because they would look like the "bad guys". In the middle east, hacktivism took out several dictators, but left power vacuums. Many hackers are short sighted and get used by political movements. Real whistleblowers don't do it for fame, they do it because they are acting in good faith and trying to uphold the law. Leakers often have political agendas nowadays, like how both the US democrats and republicans were hacked, but only the democrats emails were released.

Don't pay attention to NPCs because they don't matter. Save yourself some energy and time by only wasting breath and time on people that aren't mindless drones, a minority of people you should learn to recognize as you should discard the majority of people. Whenever meaningful changes happen, be it revolutions or what have you it doesn't come from the majority, they're just there as background noise

>>36969 NPC status is in the eye of the beholder. From my POV you're an NPC, just some interchangeable 4chan tier post that I've seen 100 times that doesn't bring anything new to the conversation but is still here. I know plenty of people who are obviously not really putting that much thought in the way they live but they are immensely more human like for me than you. Honestly almost everyone online is an NPC to some extent compared to sitting across the most insane person made of flesh and blood. That speaks to the >>36937 pont the OP tried to get to IMHO. The thing is there is a lot of activism happening in the wired, but while it was a bombshell in the late 00s and early 10s, now it's captured by social media to profit. I would compare it to finding out the biggest sponsor of the protests is the payed toilet business that is located next to the barricades and they also sponsor the restaurant that makes the terrible burritos that were the catalyst of the inciting incident that sparked the protests. People don't want change. People want their needs satisfied. Most people feel their needs for freedom satisfied by venting in their social media and getting 20 likes from their social circle. That makes the threshold of tolerance raise incredibly high and is also profitable. The most thoughtful authoritarian regimes provide the outlet for frustration that satisfies the urge without threatening the System.

>>36964 Hacktivism is built on a myth: the magic ability of supa haxxors to reveal the truth using their wizard skills. It would be the new form of resistance, far more moral and bloodless compared to what Meinhof, Baader, or Carlos the Jackel were doing back in the 70s. Of course, this myth was built up by the radical left wing media and script kiddies, none of them know anything. Most hacktivists aren't sophisticated wizards who can bend security systems to their will, and the authorities were not going to tolerate hacktivism which is the equivalent of someone waltzing into the Pentagon and lifting a bunch of top secret documents. Where did hacktivism even come from? A bunch of 4channers and guys from 7/11chan going after the CoS for the lulz. When did we ever take /b/tards seriously? The amazing socially conscious Mr Robot hacker who fights against the system never existed and probably will never exist. Launching DDoS attacks is just a minor inconvenience and if your a whistleblower, go to a reputable newspaper or media outlet not some soykafty hacka forum or Wikileaks.

>>36975 >he doesn't know cDc >he doesn't know electronic disturbance theater Anonymous came at a time where many posters who knew about raid culture and simple sql or ddos attacks while at the same time every web server admin didn't know or care about basic security. They are a few phineas phisher, supg, etc they're just much more rare.

>>36937 i remember when google analytics was a thing in 2003 or so and i just mitigated it simply because its a vulnerability not to. i.e separate browser sessions i didnt need whistleblowing for this i just accepted the fact that garbage tech is garbage and delt with it now if only muricunts (like everyone on ibs and forums) would do the same

>>36964 >>36966 It's almost as if basically every single prominent figure in every single prominent social group is some sort of fuarrrked up and few exceptions only prove the rule. The whole premise requires a certain level of crazy. "My convictions oblige me to singlehandedly go against the most powerful government apparatus in history" You are either really buthurt by the government, are in the government and feeling crushing regret for being an accomplice, or crazy. And that's just motivation to go after it. Then there's the idea of potentially putting lives at literally everyone you are connected to in jeopardy. So you must actually believe that the damage done by silent activities that you aim to circumvent is worth forfeiting the chance of a normal life for everyone you know. I don't know about you, but to me it seems unless you are crazy and believe that some human rights and some other hogwash about freedom written by Roman Republic larpers who wrote with feathers, had wooden teeth, owned slaves and had their own kids work as slaves on their plantations, massacred the natives and didn't respect their borders every chance they got, didn't trust people under 21, without land and women to vote, were actually against the parliament and taxation without direct representation despite having much better conditions than any other colony and the British isles in that regard and wanted to keep the king for most of the revolution, probably hated people from the other states more than they hated the British whom they often knew personally before the events and so on and so forth. Looking from the outside in, the whole thing was a farce from the beginning and honestly it only got worse as the time went on.

>>37000 triple zero. nice. >I don't know about you, but to me it seems unless this sentance doesnt really terminate properly I request a rewrite, with or without a feather it doesn't matter to me. anyway sounds like you're describing good couragous people who have a sense of right and wrong and true and false, and are willing to follow through rationally from those convictions. Sounds like a good type of person to me idk, the alternative is the spineless slimecreature who has convictions that he backs up by...oozing into his corner and letting the world happen to him while maybe complaining feebly?

>>37000 >the exceptions prove the rule Is this something that people actually think makes sense? I thought it was just one of those retarded idioms like "lightning doesn't strike the same place twice"

>>37002 The idea as I understand it is that the existence of a very small number of opposite examples supports the model statistically. If I'm reading raw data for a research paper on some some experiment with a complex enough design and there's not a single abberation in the results it's concerning because there probably is some sort of contamination that owerwrote the results. So I suppose it is true in that case.

Part of the problem is that people are suffering from learned helplessness. There are some people out there who'll think you're paranoid if you say that Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Apple, and friends spy on their users and anyone in the vicinity of or in communication with their users, but from what I've seen most will acknowledge that which they know, that they are being spied upon, that these corporations are profiting off of their data, but they'll say "Well you can't do anything about it." They really believe that they're powerless to the system, and that there is no other choice but to use the services provided to them by their corporate tech-overlords. To some extent it truly is difficult for people to function without certain devices or services. Some people need to have smartphones, or Gmail, and such things in order to conduct tasks pertaining to their work, these people are technological slaves. It's not like they want to do what they're doing, but they can either submit or wind up homeless. Of course with time and dedication one can work theirself out of the manacles of "Big Tech". Then there are other people who feel that in order to have the things that they want in life they have to submit to corporate-government surveillance. They value pleasure over liberty. There is nothing to be done to help these people, they are slaves to their senses. I'd say there are such people within the thread, often times they'll rationalize their enslavement, they'll justify their decision to remain in their position by saying that other people are paranoid, schizos, idealists, contrarians. To these people, as opposed to permitting their every action to be surveilled, or receding into darker, poorly monitored parts of the internet in an effort to work out of the oppressing perimeters of Big Tech, it is much more rational to hold the extent of which they're monitored in moderation. Another part of the problem is that most people suffer an inability to actualize the surveillance performed by the automated surveillance systems implanted into society. The detrimental effect the aggregation of people's data has on the world is abstract and hard for the masses to fully grasp. There's no visual, perceptible process being conducted. People can't see that their phone records any and all data they input into it, all sensory information they and other people generate in the presence of the phone such as merely conversing in the same room as a phone, carrying the phone around with them as it tracks their location while transversely pinging the devices of other people in their vicinity and recording their voices, they can't see how their phone records their face, passively photographs their environment every X seconds, they don't realize that merely owning a phone will produce some data for it to collect, even disuse of a phone is indicative of some activity in a person's life. They aren't aware of Google compromising private networks through wardriving, or their Windows systems telemetering data from their drive to MS servers. People have been born into a society rife with surveillance, with cameras on every block, on the face of every building, at stoplights, along every mile of highway, none of this stuff is real to people anymore. It's all been normalized, in the case of cameras for the sake of security, safety and security over liberty. I mean with the Snowden leaks a great deal of the public didn't even have a full grasp of the information which was being revealed to them, so much of it was revealed incrementally over such a great duration of time that they were unable to actualize the reality of the situation, it was all delivered in such a manner so as to not elicit any meaningful amount of distress within individuals. If people saw a suspicious van donning a satellite dish parked outside their house, or noticed that the same model of car would often tail them as they drove, or noticed that the same man would always be in their presence no matter where they went, they'd be far more upset. Surveillance Camera Man is a perfect display of the anger many people experience when they feel their privacy is being violated, a random dude walking up to you shoving a camera in your face is aggravating, but the millions of cameras and microphones saturating your existence at all times is not because it's acceptable within society. The masses have been conditioned into accepting a reality projected to them by the powers that be, from governments, politicians, CEOs, philanthropists, and bankers. One mere development in the press isn't going to change anything, it won't steer the world in another direction. A series of large leaks won't change much of anything either. These people control the flow of information. Ultimately change comes from within an individual, not from some exterior entity. You can't change anybody. You can give somebody everything they need to educate theirself, all of the information and resources they need, but they can still refuse to accept that information. Compounding upon that issue is the social engineering of humanity. Society at large has been split up and programmed into certain schools and patterns of thought, and turned on itself. People will arbitrarily accept and reject information based upon their programming. Cognitive dissonance is plain to see in many people throughout society over the passage of time in regards to the reactions they have to world events. I don't know what it'll take to "change things". There isn't a set, reproducible process for changing the world around you. Humanity is steeped in such a colossal volume of dire issues, most of them interconnecting with one another, entangled and burrowed within the deepest fibers of the industrialized world, that there is no comprehensible method of effectively combating said issues and delivering goodness to the world while also retaining comfort and pleasure. You can't have your cake and eat it too. I'm of the opinion people should just do as they do, change theirself, and continue onward in life, in this your presence changes the world surrounding your self. If more people did that there'd probably be a greater deal of progress made in the world regarding that which they want to change.

>>36937 No, it's not all for nothing. The public haven't changed, but it's still better to speak up and speak the truth even if few believe you. Snowden did the right thing and I encourage anyone else in his position to do the same. Don't be another cog in the machine!

normal people don't care what price they have to pay to get their dopamine hits from the internet. You have to face it, those of us who value privacy and security will always be a minority. People are natural followers.

The privacy issue eats away at me inside and makes me feel powerless and isolated. Even while writing this I assume it's being scraped by someone, stored in a database, linked to my IP, and will probably ultimately end up in some dataset that gets used as training data for a neural net run by a private company which contracts to a government which uses the net to subjugate its population. Is there any real activism and discussion left? IRC? Tor boards? Here? The people I know of fighting for privacy are all on walled gardens and totally fail to capture the totality of the situation. YouTubers e-beg the algorithm for money, even Assange's defense revolves around Stella Assange on Twitter. The public's perception of decentralization, which although they don't know it is actually their salvation, is set by VC, CBD sniffing soys trying to scam people out of their money with monkey tokens. To top it all off, computing has taken such a turn against interoperability that we all suffer with garbage interfaces, software that's slow and ugly, disparate interaction paradigms that don't make sense to anybody not trained to think like a silicon valley moron egging for a promotion (ever tried to explain to your grandma why the process for forwarding a message is different in every app?), and a thousand times faster than what we had twenty years ago, but all enslaved to creating an experience that is demeaning and far worse. There's no point to this post, I'm just desperate to feel less alone in the face of it all.

>>37161 >Is there any real activism and discussion left? IRC? Tor boards? Here? The people I know of fighting for privacy are all on walled gardens A bunch of online-privacy/decentralization related discussion on Lemmy that I've seen, lots of discussion about the Chrome WEI thing lately and everyone hates it.

>>37018 >but from what I've seen most will acknowledge that which they know, that they are being spied upon, that these corporations are profiting off of their data, but they'll say "Well you can't do anything about it." True problem here is that "you can't do anything about it" is actually condensed to the fact that it's not about corpos and govt agencies, it's about other users who impose this digital prison upon each other. "Doing anything" about it usually stops right where one tries to motivate other people to move from big tech spyware to ethical choices of communicating and doing other things. It's not hard at all to move from micro$haft office to LibreOffice or from WhatsApp to Tox, or from any other <bigtech spyware> to <better ethical non-spyware FLOSS option> personally, but now try to convince others to do the same. They will resist with no path to change their minds. Also, employment market do dictate status-quo on using spyware to a big extent. Guess the result or your offer to HR to do your interview in Jami or Tox instead of Zoom/Teams/Skype. It's a circle and while you can break out of it by sacrificing many contacts and possibilities, but one shouldn't expect others to do the same, for this situation is made by the very normal people one tries to save from spying. And one cannot save those who do not want to be saved.

>>37078 I could be completely wrong but I think HTTPS was much less common before the Snowden leaks. After 2013, HTTPS became much more widespread, and now the majority of websites have it. >>37018 >There are some people out there who'll think you're paranoid... Some? Haha, I would bet it's the vast majority of 'normal people' that think that not using social media or avoiding Google makes you some kind of paranoid schizo freak. They always bring up the "well they already know everything about me anyway" or "nothing to hide" bullshit. It's pretty depressing and disheartening, not gonna lie.. >>37162 I've read that Lemmy has issues with privacy, where deleted posts are still always accessible by mods and administrators and that uploaded media is not deleted. I don't know how real it is, but wanted to mention it. https://raddle.me/f/lobby/155371/warning-lemmy-doesn-t-care-about-your-privacy-everything-is The whole thread here is cancerous af so yeah, I take this claim with a grain of salt. People like to lose their soykaf and exaggerate. I can't read code for soykaf so I can't verify it myself.

>was it all for nothing? no he was a PSYOP meant to demoralize individuals about the godlike powers of the NSA which are most likely entirely overstated and CSI tier. real whistleblowers have probably attempted to make contact with him and were murdered, same with assange.

>>37222 perfect example >>37161 > The privacy issue eats away at me inside and makes me feel powerless and isolated. good guy be afraid

>>37222 pcapimg traffic and storing it isnt really csi tier or even technically impressive

>>37220 >I've read that Lemmy has issues with privacy, where deleted posts are still always accessible by mods and administrators and that uploaded media is not deleted It's probably true, but being able to remove things from the public internet after you already put them there isn't very reliable in any circumstance let alone within a decentralized system that spreads copies of everything around by design, so I don't think it's a big deal. I just think it's cool that there are active discussions going on entirely outside the corporate controlled platforms, using interoperable open standards, with people who at least care about that stuff. Maybe the butthurt communists have a somewhat valid criticism but it doesn't negate that.

>>37215 This was literally the point of Farenheit 451 and 1984 People only have the freedoms that they aren't willing to saccrifice. That dont mean they have to be obnoxious, but they need to speak up and say I will not gve up that specific right. People give up so many rights because its easy. Just click accept on the EULA. Just look at how many people take out predatory loans for instant gratification, and as a result are quick to call credit recovery services when they run out of money. It is much easier to use the preinstalled bloatware than the painstakingly install non-microsoft software. As an example I tied installing libreoffice on a laptop for school, and microsoft said it could not install non-app store .exe files because of my safety. I had to figure out how to disable the feature on a brand new computer. People never cared about real privacy, only the illusion of it. People are happy to do as they please quitely assuming that nothing they do is well known, or even if it is, who would bother to watch? For the most part they are correct. Even worse are the mokeys in charge of monitoring these vast public intelligence networks for intelligence and advertising. You can pay for a monthly subscription that gives you more legal right to peoples deepest darkest secrets than even the NSA is allowed to know (they can't legally use information collected from their techniques without warrants, but amazon and google are not the government and can collect and provide that same information to anyone they want). >>37222 Consdering he was egotistical enought to make a spectacle about his leak, it would help to embelish the powers that were "out to get him". His boss stopped working for the government and then got a job spying for the Arab Emirates until they started telling her to target U.S. Citizens who spoke out against the government of UAE. >>37224 Global "advertising" networks do track and combine vehicle, phone, biometric, and transaction data to make a collective advertiser profile on pretty much every human.

>>37222 this + he was a turf war between CIA and NSA, since he worked with CIA beforehand, CIAs psychologists profiled him as a tattle-tale and sent him on his merry way to destroy NSA because they were getting more and more powerful. CIA is only intelligence agency that doesn't need approval of government for their behavior while all others are governments bitches in one sense or another The way he was publicized and sensationalized compared to Julian Assange tells you everything in sense of how "damaging" his revelations really are. aka nuffin We already know we are all getting spied on, it isn't a big revelation even to an average NPC

>>37233 i wuz surrounded by nromies wen big snowman went DOWN & i do beleive dat it did alarm sum uv dem, whoo did not think it wuz dat bad n sheet, found snowman's claims scary and his story romantic, enjoyed the subsequent moobie. Assange is a journalist, gets sidelined appropriately the way greenjew is sidelined in the snowman stories. He gets attention for like, publishing stories from a deranged tranny about us accidentally killing the wrong towelheads. No romance in that.

>>37233 >CIAs psychologists profiled him as a tattle-tale and sent him on his merry way to destroy NSA because they were getting more and more powerful. pls source if you have it

>>36937 It was a great way to further dissuade any would-be martyrs in the general public.

>>40091 as usual the source is anons ass

Snowden is an American hero who did what he did for ethical reasons in a way that might help America improve. Daniel Ellsberg was another American hero of the same type. Unlike them, Assange is a petty narcissistic creep whose actions were meant only to harm America in any way possible. He had WikiLeaks release unvetted information that got a lot of good people killed, something that Snowden and Ellsberg would never have done. Assange deserves to rot in prison for the rest of his pathetic life. Snowden deserves a medal. There is no comparison between the two.

>>40102 >guize! The limited holdout operation was really real! The best disinfo is carefully framed truth. Snowden did not reveal anything of import that us hackers were cluless about. We had room 641A. We hacked 5eyes (protip: their deep packet inspection doesn't log packet timing, so Jitter == currently undetected stenograpy channel). Just because the revelution is not televised doesn't mean it's not happening, OP. The snowedin holdout is proof that enough folks knew things requiring a reframing / admittance to direct the public. Snowedin simply piled on a bunch of evidence to waste your time learning about old busted tech/craft instead of furthering knowledge about long existing CELLDAR-like capabilities. There was a biz-week article about CELLDAR, got memoryholed but wired.com has some comment residue. Gov was basically forced to option the CELLDAR patent because the tech already existed in secret. Snowden said nothing about the pervasive EMF surveilance nor its ongoing mood/mind altering uses (read Mind War by Aquino [Army PSYOP Satanic Church co-founder] and know tech is far more advanced than he mentions). The news is controlled opposition/disinfo, come on folks, wise up. All the world is a stage and your info came from their players. Believe what you want, but there are no heroes in cyberpunk.

>>40103 >CELLDAR I tried to tell this site about this and they derezzed the topic.

>>40103 > I is 1337 hAx0r an I arredy knewed evverthing be4 snoden happened lmao, schizo larper...

>>40106 What part of that post is "schizo"? RADAR has existed for a long time. RADAR tracks things on the oceans, and in the air, it's not surprising that it works on land too but Snowden had no info on even basic RADAR survielance that NROL must obviously have. Your movement creates disturbance in the ambient EMF which can be recorded & backscatter reconstructed to track people even if they never carry a cellphone. Kneejerk schizo labeling with no other substance reeks of forum spy / disinfo behavior: comment sniping to be precise.

>>40108 >Kneejerk schizo labeling with no other substance reeks of forum spy / disinfo behavior: comment sniping to be precise. That's pretty much all you get when you getinto the electromagnetic surveillance and behavior modification stuff. I got used to it, in the sense that I don't consider any input of that type to originate from something I should consider a real person. Really simple. Bot, sh!ll, retard, creep, NPC. Doesn't even matter. This template will predoominate and characterize 99% of your interactions on this topic, the noise floor is extremely high.

>>40106 >I didn't know about this before X time period, so no one knew Such implications. Hey, maybe you're the schizo, lainon. We were talking about a lot of this stuff WAY before the Snowden leaks. >>40105 I'm sure you're either full of soykaf or leaving something out, but let me know when and I can look into it.

>>40111 > I'm sure you're either full of soykaf or leaving something out, but let me know when and I can look into it. What are you asking for? When they derezzed discussion of bioelectromagnetics and magnetobiology and deleted my threads over and over after they noticed those keywords caused threads to blow up with bots and sh!lls, and didn't want the heat for their site? That's my assumption anyway. It pisses me off but whatever, I'm also not going to go too far in making excuses for the modzzzzzzzz [asleep inside].

>>40106 well not reading that post but ur quote is right, anyone who didnt know before snowden is fuarrrking retarded

>>40108 >disinfo forum spy hurr durr >on some retarded skiddie chan you are not someone who has to worry about opsec or whatever

It did make a difference Lainanon. You can't compare to today. The world before and after Snowden look very different. First off, it's not an exaggeration to say that because of Snowden, you now have web encryption at all. HTTPS was very uncommon back around 2013, and it was only after people realized that these things really can be recorded that technologists moved to encrypt everything in transit. Also, if you think it's bad now, before Snowden people treated you like a true fuarrrking whacko of you said the government was spying on everything you do. There is learned helplessness now, but that is a different problem. Before people would just ask you to prove it and not believe it. Now we know. This man saved the internet from a quick demise. Maybe it will slowly degrade into government controlled entities but if people like us are around for long enough looking out for civil liberties I expect a safeish internet will exist for decades.

>>40662 >HTTPS was very uncommon back around 2013, and it was only after people realized that these things really can be recorded that technologists moved to encrypt everything in transit Plenty of people knew this, the problem was that few people listen to hackers until we rub your face in it. >This man saved the internet from a quick demise This isn't really a win, to me.

>>40662 >>40663 > First off, it's not an exaggeration to say that because of Snowden, you now have web encryption at all. HTTPS was very uncommon back around 2013, and it was only after people realized that these things really can be recorded that technologists moved to encrypt everything in transit. You are making me think of this slide: https://www.androidauthority.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/SSL-Added-and-Removed-Here.jpg.webp

Fleeing abroad was hit fatal mistake. There's no doubt in my mind that he would be an Ellsberg-like figure and certainly free from whatever jail sentence he was sentenced to by now. I would expect way softer treatment than Manning got since the leak was motivated by higher principles. But now he's going to spend the rest of his life in Russia (where the US revoked his passport), and the national security establishment is going to forever be able to use the "hurr durr he defected to Russia" defense to discredit him.

>>40665 on the other hand snowman released stuff that actually mattered and people cared about. Obviously tainted by the onethatgotaway syndrome but when I here volks in power talk about snowden they are pissed, when I hear them talk about manning, well I mostly dont, its like they forgot about him. Not to mention that manning got like 7+1 years in prison whereas as far as I can tell snowden has had several years relative freedom living in what is by most accounts an entirely decent city, certainly by US standards, and now even has his wife and children with him. Maybe snowden is just the sort of guy who was going to succeed, but his outcome appears way better. But if you had a choice between a decade in prison and your passport...youd choose your passport, right ? I wonder if the IRS still expects him to pay income tax.

> for a public that cares more about shiny new toys than freedom. people want to be free so they have time to play with shiny new toys, walk around under the sun, and enjoy life one way or another before they grow old and die. freedom is a kind of currency, if you can't spend it on enjoying life before you die, it was kinda worthless. it's not really about shiny toys, but every time people are ready to make great sacrifices for freedom, they are doing so because whatever they want, they can't have until they're free to. once they get the things they want, they don't really need or care about freedom anymore.

>>40669 >snowden released stuff that people actually cared about Chelsea also released stuff people actually cared about, but I feel that due to her gender identity her name simply doesn't get attached to it: air strikes and child civilian killings under the obama and bush administrations and as a matter of United States foreign policy are part of the story to quite literally everyone who wants to critique American foreign policy, from far-right isolationists who appear on Fox News to street anarchists, libertarian economics professors to the PSL. while the USA's militarism was always critiqued, chelsea contributed specifics that continue reoccur in this media consistently. there's also the matter that the stuff Snowden leaked is particularly relevant to the parties who would protect him, while groups like the EFF, etc were obviously involved with Chelsea's legal defenses as well, she largely didn't bring them stories about mass surveillance. in fact one of the airstrikes videos was removed by a member of the wikileaks team who quit, whereas the cables that were immediately released concerned spying by the USA on foreign governments and meddling in their politics on behalf of finance. this is all information i gleaned from cursorily reading her page on wikipedia. tell me, if someone's Wikipedia page notes that she never said the "under God" part of the pledge of allegiance, how little attention is she truly receiving?

>>40781 >air strikes and child civilian killings its a war; thats what happens. Don't like it ? (many don't): stop the war. But as long as the war is going on, this is what you get, and moreso when you're fighting an enemy that doesn't really wear uniforms and is highly distributed among a 'civilian' population. The fact that the United States fights such wars with the ostensible purpose of helping said 'civilians', in Vietnam and elsewhere has been widely criticized, perhaps rightly. Maybe my memory of that time is poor, but as far as I recall everyone was pretty much well aware that the war wasnt going too fantastic, and "her" leaks basically just showed that everyone was already right, in a mix between killcam video and dry internal communications. Interesting ? Ok sure, a little bit, but probably mostly if you're the taliban. I'm not sure they had computers in those days though so maybe no big deal. Even my hyper autistic sperg friend who pretty much has only made eyecontact with me three times knew the taliban was the real government back in 2010, and he doesn't care about anything but astronomy. sorry this is by a journalist so idk how real it is but some overview of leaks while it was happening by fellow Oklahoman turned NYC'er: https://thislandpress.com/2011/02/08/private-manning-and-the-making-of-wikileaks-2/ IDK. I honestly do sympathize with "her" in some respects (though anyone who would complain about prison and then voluntarily remain in the hell that is NYC is clearly batshit) but if the most notable thing you leak is a video of some helicopter crews getting confused in, frankly, a very understandable way....just doesn't seem too important. Is there something you'd consider to be actually significantly revelatory which "she" released ? I'm willing to believe that idk, the cia or somebody is cleaning up the wikipage to make it look like the most important stuff is that dumb video, just haven't found what if anything is being hidden.

>>40814 Biggest news was they drone stiked doctors without borders hospital because some terrorists got also treatment there. It wasn't an oopsy but intentional murder of civilians because they knew they could get away with it. That also killed the noble price winner in medicine.

>>40815 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunduz_hospital_airstrike you mean this attack that happened years after manning was convicted ?

>>40817 the case was an example and the important part was >they murder civilians when they know they can get away with it the idea that its only unfortunate accidents is wishful thinking. Grunts even used civs for target practice while bored.

>>40815 fair, but the topic of this tangent was manning and whether "her" leaks were any good, not the war in general. If info on that event was part of the manning leaks, and it showed idk something about USAF authorities giving orders against the RoE then sure that'd be interesting. "Her" most famous video is instead this thing that gets called "Collateral Murder", that shows what really looks like an honest mistake, where some cameras get taken for weapons. Considering the amount of shenanigans that I'm sure has to have gone on around there (you can read some pretty crazy stories out of the vietnam war), this feels like a very tame incident, and I can hardly fault the helicopter crews. If that hospital attack is the one you were referencing (there's a few inconsistencies that might just be misremembering so idk for sure), then still this seems like a not-clearly-unjustifiable attack, does it not hinge on whether or not this hospital was hosting and or insurgents/whether there was credible evidence to support that there were ? NYT's website doesn't work reliably for me but if you load it right you can usually read: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/30/world/asia/afghanistan-doctors-without-borders-hospital-strike.html gives a narrative of computer problems and poor communication between different groups, leading to the AC 130 crew thinking they were told to shoot at one complex when they were supposed to shoot another, but other sources claim fairly different stories, seems a lot of people were just making soykaf up and calling it truth. What actually happened IDK, maybe if some well positioned leaker published an unredacted report we would get a better idea.

>>40826 narrative is the right word, politics 101: everyone lies with "Soooraay it wasnt intentional". They initially plainly said we striked cause doctors helped terrorists too before going PR route on it. And if there was any doubt on us mil having zero morals: in africa they had one unit run around as fake doctors giving out fake vaccination for cover. The fake vaccinated died and now the locals wont use any western vaccinations anymore. GL making that an oops it was an accident.

>>40828 >initially said it was because doctors were helping terrorists maybe I'm an autistic sperg myself, but if you're in a war, and some 'third party' is helping the enemy, then it sounds rather like they are an enemy party and therefore a valid target. US military is a massive massive organization. The 'initial statements' are a guess by some PR officer who's on the top of the list for news orgs to contact when something happens. He doesn't have a single clue about the specific sequence of events that lead to every random and perhaps unplanned airstrike that, he just repeats some talking point or makes a reasonable defense amounting to assurances for tattering journalists that this latest airstrike must have been in keeping with the RoE and that means enemy combatants were there. The narrative that later develops is either a reasonable explanation or a well fleshed out lie, but the first one is almost definitely just a guess.

>maybe I'm an autistic sperg myself, but if you're in a war, and some 'third party' is helping the enemy, then it sounds rather like they are an enemy party and therefore a valid target. Although the US haven't bothered with respecting those in quite some times, there are some "rules" to war. Among those there is "don't attack non-combattants". Non combattants include civilians, people who surrendered, prisoners, and, surprisingly, injured people in an hospital.

>>40833 there are no rules, there are polite standards, which are all thrown out the window, of necessity, when youre fighting a war like the one in Afganistan where the enemy doesn't really follow these so-called rules themselves and is well mixed with a more or less civilian population, doesn't wear uniforms, and a dozen other things. Such rules are used by countries which are friendly and respectful of each other and are significantly forgotten about when not, thus it has been throughout history. It is furthermore not remotely inconceivable that enemy combatants would use a 'protected' 'neutral' building as a base for any purpose, or as a place to shoot out of, if they were able to do so. As far as I can discern, it is possible that this hospital was being used in that fashion, or that through some mistake it was believed that the building was under use in that fashion. Or maybe it was just malice, some officer's girlfriend left him for a Doctors without Borders guy or something. IDK lol.

>>40834 saged before because getting off topic, but to bring this back to manning & leaks, I guess my point boils down to this: suppose you are correct, events like this hospital attack are part of a trend of deliberate acts of wanton violence that the military engages in because it can get away with it, and did so throughout the wars in of this century and before. Obviously manning couldn't leak proof in this hospital case, but there's a thousand other cases that "she" could have release proof of. Instead the one video that gets associated with "her" is this one incident which manages to make the military look, if a little bit incompetent, pretty much innocent. Why didn't manning release video of one of these other incidents instead, or in addition ? Either "she" is not actually what "she" claims to be, that is, "she" is just a fancy military PR guy, or maybe "she" thought this video was of a bad incident as things go and really stuff is a lot less stupidly violent and sadistic than you seem to think.

>>40831 There is an unwritten rule that you never kill doctors. Doctors are bound to help all people regardless of who hates whom. This is to prevent them from changing the goalposts of which lives are worth saving. Some doctors may be sympathetic to a specific cause, but they can't be killed while working in their capacity as a doctor. >>40833 The problem with a lot of manning's leaks were they showed misjudgements that were being covered up. It was not just >oh soykaf we accidentally killed a civilian and we should probably mention this to nobody and more of >Lmao, that dude just exploded, run bitch haha or that the videos were being traded by the intelligence corps troops and you could buy gore compilations and soykaf if you asked the right troops who were tasked with processing and archiving all the combat footage. It looked very bad on the United States, especially the video where the gunship kills the reporter who was trying to rescue dying children that had just been shot by the gunship. There is a video of the response team that had to figure out what happened, and a soldier said he picked up the shredded child and immediately thought of his child who was the same age. While the news focused on the fact that such actions were happening, wikileaks was getting famous for hosting all the evidence. But manning also leaked indiscriminately and assange posted indiscriminately. Snowden was a leaker of a much different type.

>>40835 Chelsea released a lot more than the one video, but obviously the most shocking thing - a video - is going to be the "most important" "most impactful" etc, especially to journalists or anybody with an interest in Narrative. I'm not going to spoonfeed you the more in-depth information, though, if you've looked at the wikipedia page then you should know it's readily accessible. but just in case you somehow glazed over that part of the article you can go on wikileaks yourself: https://wardiary.wikileaks.org/ while i ironically ultimately agree with whoever said Narrative, Optics aren't going to be what does it, i think its interesting that your argument drifted from denying Chelsea leaked anything meaningful, to denying that the meaningful thing she had contained context, to denying that context mattered or could be found, to more or less defending the united states armed forces actions during the war with the usual script of rationales - it could have been a mistake, even if it wasn't then ethics dont matter in war, etc. Not calling you a fed, fed, but if you seriously have an investment in change i think it would be wise to perhaps examine your own prejudices, as its clear that you have them - this isn't to be a wokescold, its because of how your seeming discomfort with the subject has you arguing. >>40836 its clear that Edward Snowden is the face of whistleblowing and that there is some meaningful difference between himself and the groups he worked with, Wikileaks and Chelsea Manning. While Wikileaks definitely seems more radical, comparatively, than the EFF, who i associated most strongly with the Snowden leaks, I don't think its fair to say that they leaked everything indiscriminately. the information put out by wikileaks was staggered monthly in hopes that it would stay in the news cycle as long as possible, and the most impactful things were clearly shown first. while i do find it believable that Snowden, as a high-ranking NSA official who genuinely believed in what he was doing but then became disenchanted of, I also don't think its great idea to frame these groups against one another. while there were differences in the campaigns, they're all ultimately on the same side in terms of criticizing the US government for being tyrannical, and the means in which they did so - Manning to my understanding initially went to the same publications Snowden did.

>>36937 >oday, when I tell people they shouldn't use google chrome or alexa, all I get is an eye roll and the "oh here goes that paranoid kid again." Even those who accept it just sigh and tell me "well, I'm doing nothing wrong. I don't mind them collecting my personal data and you shouldn't worry either." The wrong part is that many creatives end up their stuff being stolen. See that notes app? It probably saves on sharedprefs (by accident due to programmer being n00b), which is accessible to all apps, any app can just plaintext see your notes but then what? Google didn't even warn that it is a vulnerable app, lots of notes apps are like this and any app can copy your important notes. And funny that f-droid did warn people of these app vulnerabilities. >well it's just my groceries and... But to some people it's not, it probably has their seed keys or some other 100 million dollar idea and now it sits in some Silicon Valley dataminer's macbook since you had that batterysaver app that accessed your note app's sharedprefs. You know why they normalized this datamining soykaf, it's VERY profitable to steal ideas and they haven't fixed clipboard issue. Only apple has secure clipboard, Almost all mainstream apps did PasteJacking back in 2013-2018 so I was already on it even before Snowden whistled the soykaf out of them. I never used non-rooted device for that reason, I already had "usage indicator" which warns me of clipboard abuse (rampant), background camera/recorder abuse, and had my gps turned off and I didn't even use chrome back then since I knew that chrome didn't even have GPS permissions and would just use the data immediately, Fast forward and now they do, but back then the older chrome build also didn't have clipboard permissions even on PC so javascripts could steal my clipboard containing my passwords and stuff and it did, my passwords were on a leaked data, this was in 2015. Either way more people are initiated to linux due to the fiasco of datamining and forced ads so in turn it really had a positive effect in developing open source. Even most of the AOSP features for privacy did originate from cyanogenmod (mic/camera permissions), notification dots also came from shizuku along with clipboard notification but most of these were exclusive to Apple Iphone, it seems iphone devs are actually capitalizing on rolling out these privacy necessities on their device even before the "apparent open source" google botnet device did so. And it's funny that iphones did MAC (hotspot/client) randomization even before android and any other OS did!

>>40662 >First off, it's not an exaggeration to say that because of Snowden, you now have web encryption at all. HTTPS was very uncommon back around 2013, and it was only after people realized that these things really can be recorded that technologists moved to encrypt everything in transit. nothing changed. we haven't implemented the final feature which is ECH encrypted client hello over TLS/QUIC since most of the websites you browse could still be tracked through SNI inspection, even with a private DNS or complete TLS connection, it only changes when you pass stuff through a VPN but even so the VPN company would have SNI inspection logs somewhere and most of those companies are strictly owned or related to some dataminer anyways, you can prove this by deliberately putting logger servers on your content or data, it will at some point get accessed, that link you put on your document uploaded somewhere "cloud", even sometimes just accessing a website is enough to out them, they just show up as datacenter IPs with pretend user-agents. we haven't truly won if we haven't really implemented ECH across all browsers including mobile ones.

>>40662 >>40846 it arguably got worse: https does not mean your soykaf is safe from others anymore. It means the data selling is monopolized to companies doing a mitm which is the various ddos protection services like cloudfront. And same for vpn. All current big vpn providers advertising buy our vpn for safety are known to be in the data selling business logging your activity over their vpn services.

>>40836 >unwritten rule that you never kill doctors a) not clear it was known that the target building was a hospital at the time of the shooting b)if this is a rule written or unwritten, it gets ignored left and right, throughought history, when practicality and necessity dictates. Every siege, every attack on a camp, every bomb thrown over a wall or dropped from above five hundred feet, could be killing doctors. c) even if you could always tell, doctors are not obligate pacifists and do participate in wars as combatants, sometimes even while also practicing medicine d) supposing such a rule were followed strictly it would be a simple matter for any given adversary to render all his important facilities invulnerable to most attacks by keeping doctors at hand at all times and making this fact known e) at least some US RoE documents appear to explicitly support attacks on hospitals "when they are being used for military purposes". f) clearly doctors do not behave uniformly to punish those who kill some of them, otherwise they would not be supporting either side in this (or probably any) war at all. Doctors aren't loyal to some international guild or such a thing, they behave according personal motivations and loyalties, sometimes inscrutable, like everyone else.

>>40888 >this nigga full time simpin just stop dude, cringe af

Snowden defected to Russia, not the country that is famous for being pro-freedom on anything. They recently killed Navalniy for revealing how Putin diverted lots of taxpayers money to build himself a palace. The whole thing likely a FSB special operation that offered Snowden money and asylum for defecting. What Snowden said could not even be true. CIA or NSA does not need Chrome to spy on you, they can do it without it. Top level internet servers are located in basements of Pentagon after all. Just something to think about.

>>40921 >kill whisteblowers all the time >nooo why u go china/russia!!!!!

People would rather debate dumb things like bathrooms, walls, immigrants, racial garbage, and Trump than talk about serious issues like mass surveillance, mass enslavement, dystopia etc. People are hopeless losers. Humanity deserves a nuking.

>>40989 my thoughts exactly. so nice to know i'm not the only one

>>40989 Snowden was a psyop / red herring. You need periodic pressure release valves to move things forward within pre-established narratives. Most of what he revealed was already known or common sense, and all it amounted to was everyone believing they spy on your with devices that you consent to using. Which is not true. You being spied on is not opt in. You didn't consent, and they don't need your phone or computer. Instead they use things like LED lights, smart meters to vibrate your house wiring, interference patterns in an ELF infrasound background signal pattern, smart dust etc, and probably they can also literally read your mind via sympathetic magic / synthetic telepathy / machine based EEG autocorrelation or locking on to the vibrating microtubules in your brain and skin surface or whatever.

>>40991 I *really* hate this narrative. It's always presented with exactly zero evidence, and it's basically just stupid in itself. No, the stuff he revealed wasn't "already known" or "common knowledge". The vast majority of people did not know about these things and did not consider it common knowledge. Even among people who did know or considered it common knowledge, there was never any proof until Snowden leaked it. Your post is pure FUD.

>>40992 oldest simplest proof was win xp had a backdoor named nsakey so there was no doubt for whom it was made for.

>>40992 >. It's always presented with exactly zero evidence I just explained it to you, biobot.

>>40994 Explained what? I see lots of claims, no evidence.

>>40992 what he said wasn't completely brand new, there had been partial revelations prior to what he put out, there were plenty of people who had suspected it was going on before the big leak, mainly "conspiracy theorists". you can just check out media from the time period inbetween 9/11 and the leaks and find traces here and there indicating people suspected it. but sure, it was a big reveal to the vast majority of people blind to the world around them. the rest of that guy's post is silly though.

>>40995 You're used to being coddled and fondled, you lash out when you are denied this. I don't care what you come away believing.

>>40997 What's going on here is that you would like to "win" without putting in the effort of being truthful. You think that being condescending is a substitute for actually substantiating what you say. How could anybody value anything you say when you act like this? >>40996 That's definitely true. There were whistleblowers before him too, but they tried to go through official channels mainly, meaning they got suppressed. I think the reason why Snowden is important, and the reason he was mostly successful, is that nobody could ignore it. The proof was irrefutable, and it was exposed to a massive audience that normally would dismiss such claims out of hand for, as you say, being a "conspiracy theory". >>40993 That's barely anything. As mentioned, some people had an inkling, but a) almost nobody knew it for a fact b) they didn't know exactly what the NSA was doing.

>>40998 Again, as I just very clearly signaled to you in the last two posts, you aren't listening to me and I know you aren't listening to me. >How could anybody value anything you say when you act like this? You're talking right by me. I don't "feel" you as a believeable external object to interact with. Although I do see you as something to act upon, if only by acting in your general direction, or based on your "you".

>>40999 >you aren't listening to me and I know you aren't listening to me. Why should I listen to you? You've certainly given anybody a reason to. The post I initially replied to was a mishmash of claims ranging from plausible to ridiculous, all presented with exactly zero evidence, and rather than try to actually, you know, present some evidence, or really provide *any* reason *at all* for why anybody should take you seriously, you've only attacked the character of people that criticize you. Why are you even here? Do you just want to spew whatever bullshit pops into your brain onto an internet forum and receive absolutely no pushback, learn nothing new and share no information? Why even post then? Do you just like the attention? You're hardly different from the butthole guy, just less persistent. BTW when I say "you" I mean the entire genre of guys that post like this on lainchan, although I am about 90% sure you are a specific individual I've interacted with before. It shouldn't annoy me this much but it's getting under my skin this time.

>>41000 You keep trying to explain yourself (and explain me to me) either because you like to navigate the inner labyrinth and generate this sort of output, or because you think it'll result in (a) behavior modification. In reality I already get it, I know what's going on in your mind. I suppose I just can't be bothered to find a suitable foundation to build the bridge from A to C. >Why are you even here? I'm probably older / built different than you. >Do you just want to spew whatever bullshit pops into your brain Statement that betrays your inner landscape and mindset. >receive absolutely no pushback, learn nothing new and share no information? Projection or transferrence. Unfortunately I am a dark mirror, this is my role in life. You're using me as a surrogate to try to hash out issues and stress points from other areas of your life using this topic as a proxy. That's not a character flaw or any personal failing, it's just how it works. > Why even post then? To give you the information, which I did. >Do you just like the attention? I view you as a sort of trap. You're not a parasite or a vampire or anything malicious like that, you're just designed in a way that is highly disposed to drain people like me. >although I am about 90% sure you are a specific individual I've interacted with before. Probably. > It shouldn't annoy me this much but it's getting under my skin this time. Of course. On some level you're aware that you're engaging with something that has a certain and selective mutability, but is overall inflexible in the ways you would like. This creates the awareness that you're near something that will not facilitate you continuing on as you are. Your only option is therefo0re to disengage entirely, but this lack of clarity and reconciliation frustrates and disappoints. Creating unrest about past present and future. The human concept is simply a bad design. It really is. But I can't be everything for everyone, nor do I desire to.

>>41001 We've had this conversation before. You are not enlightened.

>>41002 Just more showing me why I shouldn't reply.

>>41003 Correct. Writing more than two sentences on an imageboard in a thread where zero evidence things are discusses is a fundamental mistake and a sign of low IQ.