Google Knows What You’ve Been Searching For

You might want to remember that Google is watching and remembering while you’re cruising the web and searching for stuff, especially you freaks in Lahore, Pakistan.

Yo, Chutiya! You’re taking a lot more into your own hands than you think if the Islamists surrounding you find out what you’re doing on the web.

But before any of us complain too stridently about this, let’s all take a moment to remember something else:

If you are not paying for it, you’re not the customer; you’re the product being sold.

– Andrew Lewis aka blue_beetle

That’s pretty much how it goes in the real word which, despite the best efforts of fools, the internet is part and parcel of. So enjoy yourselves, but remember that it’s Google giving you that feeling of being watched while you….whatever.

That fundamental, self-imposed ignorance, of course,  never seems to stop these cretins from yammering about things about which they know nothing or next to nothing.

Most hilarious reaction is the SOPA Strike or Blackout protest going on today (January 18, 2012).  Well over 99% of the sites choosing to “go dark” are so inconsequential that their permanent loss would go utterly unnoticed by the internet public at large.

NOTE: This blog would also most definitely fall into that 99%, as would virtually all personal websites. I have some comforting illusions but this blog’s importance isn’t one of them.

On the slim chance that you, my dear reader, wish to be one of the 1% who isn’t bleating in ignorance born rage, links to the full text of both SOPA and PIPA can be found below:

Texts of SOPA & PIPA

• Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) [H. R. 3261]
• Protect IP Act (PIPA) [S. 968]

At least after reading the bills in question one can, if one still has an issue with one or both of them, have complaints and arguments based upon actual verifiable facts as opposed to the drivel certain agendists spoon feed their drones. And it’s not inconceivable that you would still take issue with SOPA and PIPA; like all laws, there’s room for argument over the details – especially over the various amendments and riders that are always added to bills in Congress.

The most strident of the complaints from the willfully ignorant masses, however, seem to fall into three categories: theft of intellectual property is OK; SOPA & PIPA will lead to censorship; and applying nations’ laws to cyberspace is wrong.

Theft of Intellectual Property is OK

Many who hate SOPA and PIPA just hate copyright law the in first place. These are the same sorts of vermin who make up the backbone of the OWS rabble. They support theft from “rich” content produces and want their entertainment or software for free or nearly so.  For them piracy is a form a wealth redistribution that largely bypasses the monetary system.

For them, I believe from what I’ve heard and read, it’s those parts of the bills that allow for the content creators to expand the “take down order” process to an offender’s advertisers and payment processors that bother them the most.

While not a defense for these beliefs, the ongoing punitive foolishness of the MPAA and RIAA regarding copyright infringement does make them unsympathetic and easy targets for spite.

SOPA & PIPA Will Lead to Censorship

Many who hate SOPA and PIPA don’t hate them because of what’s in the bills themselves. They just believe that it will lead to censorship in the future and, hence, have to be killed now.

I’m always leery of slippery slope arguments. As a nation we’ve heard the slippery slope used to justify the Jim Crow laws and our involvement in Vietnam, to name just two historic examples. We’re also currently hearing it in the war over gay marriage, which opponents say will lead to legalizing polygamy and pedophilia.

Objectively this could happen. SOPA and PIPA could be the foundation for later laws that enact internet censorship in America. Any restriction, however, could lead to greater and more onerous later restrictions just as any law intrinsically carries the possibility that it will be abused by those who enforce it.

Applying Nations’ Laws to Cyberspace is Wrong

Many who hate SOPA and PIPA hate the idea of applying a nation’s laws – or any law at all – to the internet. To these sorts the interaction of cyberspace and nation space must always be a one way street, with the internet being what affects or restricts nations and never nations affecting or restricting their populations’ access to- and use of the internet. These are the same sort of idiots that think the internet is Human right and, like all such cult-minded individuals, they can’t be argued with and should be largely ignored.

A subset of these people have a similar but more rational complaint. They fear that America enacting laws such as SOPA and PIPA would likely result in other nations governments to do similarly, in service to whatever political or social policies they value – whether those are restricting: pornography, hate speech, blasphemy, insults to public officials, or political dissent – thus potentially restricting access to foreign – possibly American – content for reasons that Americans find abhorrent.

There’s a wee bit of the slippery slope argument in this fear but it seems reasonable to think that other nations might follow the perceived spirit of America’s lead in this issue but apply their own sensibilities to it, which might be at odds with our own. I just don’t see where this is a problem.

The internet isn’t wholly separate from the world and individual nations have the right to place restrictions on what foreign content is available to their populations, just as any border carries some level of security. If Americans don’t agree with another nation’s restrictions it not the restrictions we really disagree; it’s the underlying sociopolitical structure of the nation in question.

~*~

The truly sad yet ironic thing is that if people weren’t so willfully ignorant and actually read these bills instead of trusting the jabbering of agendists, partisan pundits, and demagogues soon far fewer bills that people disliked would even get to committee.

Then again, expecting more of people than of the politicians they elect – who can’t or won’t read the bills they’re voting upon – is probably both stupid and borderline insane.

That is what technology does. It removes the need for low-end manual effort, effort that is considered unacceptably hazardous, and effort that requires tedious repetition and accuracy.

It Was So Much Easier In the Iron Age

Somehow I don’t think that they’ve fully thought through the problems that He would face upon His return.

It was only a matter of time before these Leftist filth made a push to pervert and control the internet in the same manner.

As always, they seek to wield fictional rights as a sword in their broad ranging jihad against individual liberty, capitalism, and any thought that merit should hold any meaning whatsoever.

The current case in point is the filth from the Internet Rights and Principles Dynamic Coalition and their 10 Internet Rights And Principles with my specific rebuttal in-line:

1. Universality and Equality
   All humans are born free and equal in dignity and rights, which must be respected, protected and fulfilled in the online environment.

One – people may well be born equal in dignity and rights but their later actions will not result in equal worth or outcome.

Two – neither rights nor privileges must be protected on the net anymore than they me protected in any other venue and, in no case, is fulfillment required to be enforced.

2. Rights and Social Justice
   The Internet is a space for the promotion, protection and fulfillment of human rights and the advancement of social justice. Everyone has the duty to respect the human rights of all others in the online environment.

The internet is a method for communication, nothing more. Any other idea is phantasmagoria meant to further a non-normative agenda.

3. Accessibility
   Everyone has an equal right to access and use a secure and open Internet.

Technically true – everyone has the right to purchase whatever level of access they can afford unless their crimes have resulted in their forfeiture of this right.

4. Expression and Association
   Everyone has the right to seek, receive, and impart information freely on the Internet without censorship or other interference. Everyone also has the right to associate freely through and on the Internet, for social, political, cultural or other purposes.

No; everyone has the right to use their purchased access to seek, receive, and impart legal information without government censorship except when that censorship is for reasons of national security.

Technical limitation required by internet providers are to be expected and no individual, group, corporation, or government is required to provide a forum for such expression and can, within their own systems edit or delete information at will.

5. Privacy and Data Protection
   Everyone has the right to privacy online. This includes freedom from surveillance, the right to use encryption, and the right to online anonymity. Everyone also has the right to data protection, including control over personal data collection, retention, processing, disposal and disclosure.

People have no more right to privacy online than when using any other form of communication. Government can surveil people within the limits set forth by their nations’ laws.

Additionally any entity may require any level or type of personal data as a prerequisite for providing to an individual an online service of any sort.

As for control over the later use of one’s information – that is a good thing and a privilege that should be maintained wherever possible but it’s not a right.

6. Life, Liberty and Security
   The rights to life, liberty, and security must be respected, protected and fulfilled online. These rights must not be infringed upon, or used to infringe other rights, in the online environment.

This one beggars the imagination of any and all rational humans. I can’t even begin to address the gross stupidity of this point in their manifesto.

7. Diversity
   Cultural and linguistic diversity on the Internet must be promoted, and technical and policy innovation should be encouraged to facilitate plurality of expression.

If there’s a market for such things they will happen organically, without significant intervention by any governing body. Nor should such ghettoization be actively encouraged.

This idea is counterproductive to the free flow of information, ideas, and knowledge and is nothing but another example of Leftists’ hatred for normative / majority behaviors, ideals, morality, and cultures.

8. Network Equality
   Everyone shall have universal and open access to the Internet’s content, free from discriminatory prioritization, filtering or traffic control on commercial, political or other grounds.

Translation – The productive members of society must pay for the internet access of the worthless eaters and looters; this is ever the generalized goal of “Social Justice.”

9. Standards and Regulation
   The Internet’s architecture, communication systems, and document and data formats shall be based on open standards that ensure complete interoperability, inclusion and equal opportunity for all.

If there’s a market for this it will happen organically, without significant intervention by any governing body. In point of fact, it already has to a large extent.

These puling Leftists real point is the “inclusion and equal opportunity for all;” by which they really mean equal results for all. It is nothing but an attempt to suborn the standards to bring everyone down to the level of the lowest common denominators.

10. Governance
    Human rights and social justice must form the legal and normative foundations upon which the Internet operates and is governed. This shall happen in a transparent and multilateral manner, based on principles of openness, inclusive participation and accountability.

The Internet’s normative foundation is as a communication medium, nothing more and nothing less. It has nothing intrinsically to do with human rights or “Social Justice.”

Most of the above are nothing but but Leftist “dog-whistles” for nationalizing – actually “extra-nationalizing” as in the UN – the internet backbone and providing broadband access to everyone and anyone without direct charge – unless, of course, they’re a productive member of society, in which case they would not only have to directly pay for internet access but also indirectly pay for the internet access that would be provided for the useless eaters of the world.

I freely admit that the moment anything starts jabbering about “Social Justice” my first thought is to put few hollow-point rounds in their guts and that I rarely get past that thought.

That is simply because I believe in defending my real rights from their supposedly benevolent tyranny and their goal to steal from me and mine in order to give to those without measurable worth or merit.

And, as is always the case with these vermin, they want some form of monitoring / governing body to police the internet to ensure that nobody except the productive and normative members of society are ever offended by what is said on the internet.

When dealing with these sorts it’s absolutely necessary to remember that their goals never change and their attack vectors rarely do so. It’s always the same thing, incessant attacks upon individual liberties, capitalism, and national sovereignty with the goal being to subjugate humanity to a tyrannical nanny state world quasi-government devoted to enslaving the productive to feed the needs and desires of the worthless dregs at the bottom of society.

~*~

Keep your eyes open. Travel light but load heavy, and always put another round in the enemy after they’re down.

There’s also been discussion about these newspapers moving to “paywall models” for their digital content. Whether or not such schemes will allow any individual newspaper to survive is, I believe, more upon who their target audience is than upon any other factor or or factors.

So who reads which newspapers?

1. The Wall Street Journal is read by the people who run the country.
2. The Washington Post is read by people who think they run the country.
3. The New York Times is read by people who think they should run the country, and who are very good at crossword puzzles.
4. USA Today is read by people who think they ought to run the country but don’t really understand The New York Times. They do, however, like their statistics shown in pie charts.
5. The Boston Globe is read by people whose parents used to run the country and did a poor job of it, thank you very much.
6. The New York Daily News is read by people who aren’t too sure who’s running the country and don’t really care as long as they can get a seat on the train.
7. The New York Post is read by people who don’t care who is running the country as long as they do something really scandalous, preferably while intoxicated.
8. The Miami Herald is read by people who are running another country, but need the baseball scores.
9. The National Enquirer is read by people trapped in line at the grocery store.
10. The Seattle Times is read by people who have recently caught a fish and need something to wrap it in.
11. The Los Angeles Times is read by people who wouldn’t mind running the country, if they could find the time from indoor tanning, teeth whitening, and botox – and if they didn’t have to leave Southern California to do it.
12. The San Francisco Chronicle is read by people who aren’t sure if there is a country or that anyone is running it; but if so, they oppose all that they stand for. There are occasional exceptions if the leaders are handicapped people-of-color feminist gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender atheist dwarfs who also happen to be illegal aliens from any other country or galaxy — provided of course, that they are not Republicans.

NOTE: Variants of this list / joke have been circulating since at least 2005 but this version came from Fellowship of the Minds.

So which group, if any, do you think will find paying for a digital subscription to their newspaper to be of value? The movers and shakers,the would-be movers and shakers, the Frustrati, or the prurient masses seeking enjoyment through Schadenfreude?

Personally I think the newspaper, such as it is, with by far the best chance of having a salable digital market is The National Enquirer. It has a large consumer base, none of which want to be seen purchasing it!

In many ways I’d have to say that the results, while somewhat expected, were rather discouraging.

The Top 25 search terms used during 2010 by people to reach this blog during 2010 were:

This matches up well statistically with the fact that the top 2 posts – Support The Arts (NSFW) and Denying Atzlan (NSFW) – respectively accounted for 18,484 and 11,714 of the 152,089 page views that Reflections From A Murky Pond got last year. The blog’s home page accounted for another 28,430 views.

Oh well. I suppose it doesn’t really matter what brings the readers here. What matters is that they read what they find.

We now have a growing number of people having online “relationships” where they’re “dating” people they’ve never even seen, much less met in person!

The Guild’s Do You Wanna Date My Avatar, featuring Felicia Day, sums up the disturbing situation with aplomb, style, and just the right amount, in my rarely humble opinion, of sarcasm-laced humor.

Do You Want To Date My Avatar? Gods! I Hope and Pray Not

Truly, this online dating 2.0 where the participants have never seen each other and conduct their “affairs” solely through the interactions between their avatars leaves me in the position of not knowing whether to laugh or bang my head against the wall.

And how much more bizarre is it going to get now that they’ve developed the Kinect!?!

While most of the spam in email and text messages is “mass mailings”  or a phishing / malware attacks, that in our blog comments is normally an attempt at “Black Hat SEO.”

Blog comment spam has gotten a lot more sophisticated recently, with spammers crafting the “comments” to fit keywords on blogs in order to make them actually look relevant and less “spammy.” This has led to some funny results such as the spam comment shown below.

Howdy, i read your blog occasionally and i personal a similar one and i was just wondering should you get a lot of spam comments? If so how do you prevent it, any plugin or anything you can advise? I get so much recently it’s driving me mad so any assistance is very much appreciated.

The irony and/or sarcasm and sheer chutzpah of this particular piece of blog spam was so funny to me that, when I checked my spam filter for false-positives, I almost approved the comment out of appreciation for the laughs it gave me – almost.

Unexpected Consequences Of Spammer Sophistication Are Possible

I wonder if things will inadvertently come to what XKCD jokes about. Could improved spambot AI’s actually supplant human comments?

They are especially rabid for the FCC to crack down on the internet.

Moreover, on the Internet, speakers can hide in the cloak of anonymity, emboldened to say things that they may not say in the public eye.

– Jessica J. González, Esq.
National Hispanic Media Coalition

I’m sure that President Obama and his chief of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Cass Sunstein heartily approve of their efforts since they both desire to quell and silence the speech of Americans.

This pernicious attempt by some minorities – mostly Hispanics – and their sympathizers to steal the basic rights of Americans through corruption of the law is, however, not surprising; it’s a growing trend among certain sorts of America’s and Civilized World’s enemies.

What caused these groups to petition Obama’s FCC to infringe upon Americans’ rights at this time? That’s simple. It was Arizona passing immigration laws that mimicked the federal laws already on the books but that might actually be properly enforced.

As NHMC has awaited Commission action, hate, extremism and misinformation have been on the rise, and even more so in the past week as the media has focused on Arizona’s passage of one of the harshest pieces of anti-Latino legislation in this country’s history, SB 1070.

Since the vast majority of the MSM’s reporting on Arizona’s SB 1070 has been little more than race-baiting, hatemongering attacks against the law, the state of Arizona, and the hardworking American people who love their country and wish its borders secured, it’s obvious that the “hate, extremism and misinformation” their ranting about is the few outlets that have actually reported on the true content of the law and that it largely mirrors the federal laws that are not enforced.

Come here legally, learn our language, fully join our culture, and forsake all other loyalties and neither I nor any other American will have issue with you. Do otherwise at your own peril.

I would strongly suggest that these groups rethink their strategies and core philosophies. This is America, not La Provincia del Norte, and the best way for Hispanics to deal with the supposed increase in “hate crimes” against them is to stop behaving in manners that are rightfully hated by Americans at large – such as attempting to curtail free speech and a free press, both integral to American society.