(untitled)

So me and a friend (hi miek if you're out there) are going to do a course in his school about the evilness of social networks, their habit to fuarrrk you in the ass when it comes to privacy and the fact they are a filthy instrument of da Capital to control the masses. Basically we need stories, data, single episodes of privacy violations to use as an example, statistic and maybe some articles about political influences and market mechanics behind social networks. Do any of you lains have some interesting links to share? Thanks in andvance to everyone. (copypaste from arisuchan, i'm asking on both sites)

Seems pointless to me even if you show them the truth they wont change their mind no matter how much truth you pile on your stack

The only really scary example I can think of is US companies selling bundles of personal info (name, age, address, telephone number) they bought from other big companies. IIRC they had some very questionable bundles like "recovering gambling addict" or medical information. I don't know how much social media companies had to do with it but it might be worth researching.

>>7097 These types of images would be better if they had sources.

"The world is not sliding, but galloping into a new transnational dystopia. This development has not been properly recognized outside of national security circles. It has been hidden by secrecy, complexity and scale. The internet, our greatest tool of emancipation, has been transformed into the most dangerous facilitator of totalitarianism we have ever seen. The internet is a threat to human civilization. These transformations have come about silently, because those who know what is going on work in the global surveillance industry and have no incentives to speak out. Left to its own trajectory, within a few years, global civilization will be a postmodern surveillance dystopia, from which escape for all but the most skilled individuals will be impossible. In fact, we may already be there. While many writers have considered what the internet means for global civilisation, they are wrong. They are wrong because they do not have the sense of perspective that direct experience brings. They are wrong because they have never met the enemy." "Big Brother is home. He is installed in the item you just dragged home from the Apple store." "There is an uncomfortable willingness among privacy campaigners to discriminate against mass surveillance conducted by the state to the exclusion of similar surveillance conducted for profit by large corporations. Partially, this is a vestigial ethic from the Californian libertarian origins of online pro-privacy campaigning. Partially, it is a symptom of the superior public relations enjoyed by Silicon Valley technology corporations, and the fact that those corporations also provide the bulk of private funding for the flagship digital privacy advocacy groups, leading to a conflict of interest. At the individual level, many of even the most committed privacy campaigners have an unacknowledged addiction to easy-to-use, privacy-destroying amenities like Gmail, Facebook, and Apple products. As a result, privacy campaigners frequently overlook corporate surveillance abuses. When they do address the abuses of companies like Google, campaigners tend to appeal to the logic of the market, urging companies to make small concessions to user privacy in order to repair their approval ratings. There is the false assumption that market forces ensure that Silicon Valley is a natural government antagonist, and that it wants to be on the public’s side—that profit-driven multinational corporations partake more of the spirit of democracy than government agencies. Many privacy advocates justify a predominant focus on abuses by the state on the basis that the state enjoys a monopoly on coercive force. For example, Edward Snowden was reported to have said that tech companies do not “put warheads on foreheads.” This view downplays the fact that powerful corporations are part of the nexus of power around the state, and that they enjoy the ability to deploy its coercive power, just as the state often exerts its influence through the agency of powerful corporations. The movement to abolish privacy is twin-horned. Privacy advocates who focus exclusively on one of those horns will find themselves gored on the other." "Cryptography is the ultimate form of non-violent direct action." -- Julian Assange

>>7098 Well technically the source of those statements are the people, not any written source you can cite. You cite people by naming them, you cite claims about these people by citing any written record about them.

>>7098 Search for the quotes and you'll find the sources. Not that hard.

"And I love the people there. Sergey Brin and Larry Page are cool. But I'm terrified of the next generation that takes over. A benevolent dictatorship is still a dictatorship. At some point people are going to realise that Google has everything on everyone. Most of all, they can see what questions you're asking, in real time. Quite literally, they can read your mind." "I've heard quite a lot of people that talk about post-privacy, and they talk about it in terms of feeling like, you know, it's too late, we're done for, there's just no possibility for privacy left anymore and we just have to get used to it. And this is a pretty fascinating thing, because it seems to me that you never hear a feminist say that we're post-consent because there is rape. And why is that? The reason is that it's bullsoykaf. We can't have a post-privacy world until we're post-privilege. So when we cave in our autonomy, then we can sort of say, "well, okay, we don't need privacy anymore, in fact we don't have privacy anymore, and I'm okay with that." Realistically though people are not comfortable with that. Because, if you only look at it from a position of privilege, like, say, white man on a stage, then yeah, maybe post-privacy works out okay for those people. But if you have ever not been, or if you are currently not, a white man with a passport from one of the five good nations in the world, it might not really work out well for you, and in fact it might be designed specifically such that it will continue to not work out well for you, because the structures themselves produce these inequalities. So when you hear someone talk about post-privacy, I think it's really important to engage them about their own privilege in the system and what it is they are actually arguing for." -- Jacob Appelbaum.

"Recently, we have learned that our governments, working in concert, have created a system of worldwide mass surveillance, watching everything we do. Great Britain's George Orwell warned us of the danger of this kind of information. The types of collection in the book; microphones, and videocameras, and TVs that watch us, are nothing compared to what he have available today. We have sensors in our pockets that track us everywhere we go. Think about what this means for the privacy of the average person. A child born today will grow up with no conception of privacy at all. They'll never know what it means to have a private moment to themselves, an unrecorded, unanalysed thought, and that's a problem because privacy matters. Privacy is what allows us to determine who we are, and who we want to be. The conversation occurring today will determine the amount of trust we can place both in the technology that surrounds us, and the government that regulates it. Together we can find a better balance. End mass surveillance, and remind the government that if it really wants to know how we feel, asking is always cheaper than spying." "Saying that you don’t care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don’t care about freedom of speech because you have nothing to say. It’s a deeply anti social principle because rights are not just individual, they’re collective, and what may not have value to you today may have value to an entire population, an entire people, an entire way of life tomorrow. And if you don’t stand up for it, then who will?" "Abandoning open society for fear of terrorism is the only way to be defeated by it." "The NSA has the greatest surveillance capabilities that we've ever seen in history. Now, what they will argue, is that they don't use this for nefarious purposes against American citizens. In some ways, that's true but the real problem is that they're using these capabilities to make us vulnerable to them and then saying, 'well I have a gun pointed at your head. I'm not going to pull the trigger. Trust me.'" "Study after study has show that human behaviour changes when we know we’re being watched. Under observation, we act less free, which means we effectively are less free." "I don't want to live in a world where everything that I say, everything I do, everyone I talk to, every expression of creativity or love or friendship is recorded." "The common argument that we have ‘if you have nothing to hide …you have nothing to fear’– the origins of that are literally Nazi propaganda… That is literally the origin of that quote. It’s from their minister of propaganda Joseph Goebbels. So when we hear modern politicians, when we hear modern people repeating that reflexively without confronting its origins, without confronting what it really says… that’s harmful." -- Edward Snowden

>>7105 Edward Snowden is CIA wage slave that was used for turf war between CIA and NSA, he even supported Black Lives Matter, a fuarrrking terrorist organization. He is a dumb ass that was USED by CIA and that is why he was able to run away to Russia "without anyone not being able to stop him". Anyone from his mouth is like from mouth of government controlled small leak of information, a tryhard Julian Assange at best.

>>7110 >that was used for turf war between CIA and NSA Unsubstantiated brewing soykaf. >he even supported Black Lives Matter, a fuarrrking terrorist organization. I see what your real problem with Snowden is. Just state it outright instead of making up bullsoykaf.

>>7106 Appelbaum is completely discredited, why even bother. >>7110 > terrorist organization [citation needed]

>>7112 >Appelbaum is completely discredited, why even bother. He dun goof'd. Removing him from Tor project was surely the right decision. However, that doesn't invalidate his year-long activism and the message of his statements.

>>7110 Please provide compelling evidence when making such claims.

i wrote an article on my school's journal about cambridge analytica, and i need an imagine explaining how bad big tech companies are. Anyone got ideas?

>>7665 https://i.pinimg.com/originals/03/f9/6d/03f96d5589ca296b032039f1e31e0502.jpg Here you go my fassist friend

>>7677 HOW DARE YOU CALL ME FASSIST FILTHY FASSIST STALINFAG WHO CALLS OTHERS FASSIST TRYING TO HIDE WITH HIS FASSIST BEHAVIOUR THE FASSIST FACT THAT HE HIMSELF IS A FASSIST did you read the article at least xddd? thx 4 da pic but i already sent it :(

Quote Orwell. Never fails.