Snowden poll

[bitsmichel]

didn't refuse to answer your question, I only asked how it was relevant to any of this. As soon as you can provide a satisfactory answer, I'll answer your question.

And I'm sorry to say, but I suspect you mostly watch propaganda. I suggest you avoid mainstream media, because you're never going to learn anything about the outside world through it.


In democratic countries, medias are free and open. Only the authoritarian State media spread propaganda. Cool

I have many good friends from Arab world, eg. Iran, Turkey and Afghanistan etc.

I think I know much better what they think and i respect their thoughts because I know what freedom of speech is.

You avoided a direct answer from a simple question. It already shows there is  guilty conscience in your heart.

No need to answer my question, I knew what you thought.

Guilty conscience in my heart for 9/11? You knew what I thought? This is getting ridiculous; are you going to accuse me of having participated in the 9/11 attacks next? And as I said, I don't mind answering the question if it is in anyway relevant to what we were discussing; but instead, you seem to be using it to run away from my previous arguments. Are they that hard to answer honestly, or did you never thought about them and are desperately trying to evade them?

And "In democratic countries, medias are free and open"? "Only the authoritarian State media spread propaganda"? Now I hope you really are just joking; have you never heard of "Faux" News? One serious look at the mainstream media, in the US for example, will tell you how wrong you are. Please stop watching that stuff and use online sources for news...  Roll Eyes

Chicken-Duck talk, let's stop here, i don't wanna waste my time on you any more, sorry

All media propagates their own opinion inside it - no matter if you watch US, China,Russia, European or Afghanistan TV.  Some may be more obvious than others to the perceiver.
The west has programs like Operation Mockingbird, China/Russia and others have their own variant.

[msc_de]

didn't refuse to answer your question, I only asked how it was relevant to any of this. As soon as you can provide a satisfactory answer, I'll answer your question.

And I'm sorry to say, but I suspect you mostly watch propaganda. I suggest you avoid mainstream media, because you're never going to learn anything about the outside world through it.


In democratic countries, medias are free and open. Only the authoritarian State media spread propaganda. Cool

I have many good friends from Arab world, eg. Iran, Turkey and Afghanistan etc.

I think I know much better what they think and i respect their thoughts because I know what freedom of speech is.

You avoided a direct answer from a simple question. It already shows there is  guilty conscience in your heart.

No need to answer my question, I knew what you thought.

Guilty conscience in my heart for 9/11? You knew what I thought? This is getting ridiculous; are you going to accuse me of having participated in the 9/11 attacks next? And as I said, I don't mind answering the question if it is in anyway relevant to what we were discussing; but instead, you seem to be using it to run away from my previous arguments. Are they that hard to answer honestly, or did you never thought about them and are desperately trying to evade them?

And "In democratic countries, medias are free and open"? "Only the authoritarian State media spread propaganda"? Now I hope you really are just joking; have you never heard of "Faux" News? One serious look at the mainstream media, in the US for example, will tell you how wrong you are. Please stop watching that stuff and use online sources for news...  Roll Eyes

Chicken-Duck talk, let's stop here, i don't wanna waste my time on you any more, sorry

All media propagates their own opinion inside it - no matter if you watch US, China,Russia, European or Afghanistan TV.  Some may be more obvious than others to the perceiver.
The west has programs like Operation Mockingbird, China/Russia and others have their own variant.

no!  west world full of multi-voice but countries such as china, north korea NOT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[dogechode]

ROFL I GOT MY OWN POLL OPTION! I was half-asleep and I read that and was like wait...what?? then started cracking up at my desk.

[u9y42]

All media propagates their own opinion inside it - no matter if you watch US, China,Russia, European or Afghanistan TV.  Some may be more obvious than others to the perceiver.
The west has programs like Operation Mockingbird, China/Russia and others have their own variant.

no!  west world full of multi-voice but countries such as china, north korea NOT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I know I'm probably wasting my time here, but I'll give it another go anyway...

This isn't a black and white issue: dictatorships only have state propaganda, and democracies have free press; it's more complicated than that. While in a totalitarian state the press is usually under direct control, in more open societies the press still has to respond to its owner's interests. That is to say, the press is restricted in its speech by the people that write the paychecks of those that work there. If they don't like what you're saying, they'll cut it out of the news, and if you insist on it you're fired.

There might appear to be freedom for discussion and different ideas going around in the mainstream media, but this is mainly in subjects that don't really affect the interests of the business owners; those with real power. That is not to say these exchanges aren't important, they are: so for example, you might see a lot of debate going around about gay rights. That's great, and it will affect the lives of many people, but ultimately it's meaningless to the "owners". Now look back at the reporting before the Iraq War we were talking about yesterday: where was the debate? There was none. The news were full of "Iraq has WMDs" and "they were responsible for 9/11" or some such nonsense, both of which were obvious lies.

To further illustrate this point, look at the cases of those that dared to speak against the establishment; you have multiple cases, just in this last decade if you want: Manning, jailed, tortured, held for an endless time before even getting the chance at a trial (nevermind a real trial); Assange and Wikileaks which despite in many respects being little different than the many other mainstream news organizations that printed the same stuff they did, they alone have been persecuted; the attacks on some journalists at the Associated Press; etc.. And even if you'd think they should be safe going through proper channels and reporting wrong doing to their superiors and stuff, the cases of Thomas Drake and William Binney for example show that those in power won't care, but will still hunt you down and shut you up first and foremost, in whatever way they deem convenient.

[sana8410]

Snowden saying that he wants to help the government reminds of the guy who wanted to live with wild bears. That is a naive position. Government will always try to grow and increase its power. Liberty is a threat to government. If you try to promote freedom with the government: the very moment the government takes you seriously you will end up like that guy trying to be friends with wild bears.
You will get eaten.

[TheFootMan]

Your input and time was not wasted. I do think you speak the truth. It is very sad its like this. Could it ever be changed? And I guess most people would never care?

All media propagates their own opinion inside it - no matter if you watch US, China,Russia, European or Afghanistan TV.  Some may be more obvious than others to the perceiver.
The west has programs like Operation Mockingbird, China/Russia and others have their own variant.

no!  west world full of multi-voice but countries such as china, north korea NOT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I know I'm probably wasting my time here, but I'll give it another go anyway...

This isn't a black and white issue: dictatorships only have state propaganda, and democracies have free press; it's more complicated than that. While in a totalitarian state the press is usually under direct control, in more open societies the press still has to respond to its owner's interests. That is to say, the press is restricted in its speech by the people that write the paychecks of those that work there. If they don't like what you're saying, they'll cut it out of the news, and if you insist on it you're fired.

There might appear to be freedom for discussion and different ideas going around in the mainstream media, but this is mainly in subjects that don't really affect the interests of the business owners; those with real power. That is not to say these exchanges aren't important, they are: so for example, you might see a lot of debate going around about gay rights. That's great, and it will affect the lives of many people, but ultimately it's meaningless to the "owners". Now look back at the reporting before the Iraq War we were talking about yesterday: where was the debate? There was none. The news were full of "Iraq has WMDs" and "they were responsible for 9/11" or some such nonsense, both of which were obvious lies.

To further illustrate this point, look at the cases of those that dared to speak against the establishment; you have multiple cases, just in this last decade if you want: Manning, jailed, tortured, held for an endless time before even getting the chance at a trial (nevermind a real trial); Assange and Wikileaks which despite in many respects being little different than the many other mainstream news organizations that printed the same stuff they did, they alone have been persecuted; the attacks on some journalists at the Associated Press; etc.. And even if you'd think they should be safe going through proper channels and reporting wrong doing to their superiors and stuff, the cases of Thomas Drake and William Binney for example show that those in power won't care, but will still hunt you down and shut you up first and foremost, in whatever way they deem convenient.

[noviapriani]

Snowden is part of their plan. Cause if he wasn't and spilling info that they wanted to keep quiet he would be sleeping with the fishes. A normal guy in hiding would never go on a show and if he did he would have bags under eyes for lack of sleep, be malnourished for not being able to eat for fear of losing his life. This guy looks like he is very happy for supposedly having a price on his head looks more like hes enjoying the celebrity status.. I have no clue what the plan will be but I know he is part of it.

[sana8410]

Snowden is part of their plan. Cause if he wasn't and spilling info that they wanted to keep quiet he would be sleeping with the fishes. A normal guy in hiding would never go on a show and if he did he would have bags under eyes for lack of sleep, be malnourished for not being able to eat for fear of losing his life. This guy looks like he is very happy for supposedly having a price on his head looks more like hes enjoying the celebrity status.. I have no clue what the plan will be but I know he is part of it.

Snowden is foolish and is very hubris. Of course someone engineered for him to get stuck in Russia, and he doesn't know it. It is very plausible for things to get set up the way it did, for him to be stuck at the airport for hours (people are capable of planning scenarios this complex). He thinks he's doing the right thing, and he thinks hes a hero. Really he is being used as leverage to make a corrupt government look better compared to a less corrupt one. To leave documents in Hong Kong, there is no guarantee that the Chinese wouldn't get this info. One mistake, and this info is theirs; leave it on a computer hooked to the internet and its theirs, if the government even knows who has the information, its compromised, no matter how trustworthy these journalists are, assuming they weren't spies.
For him to alert the world of their privacy being invaded may have been good for the long run, but how it happened may more than negate this benefit.

[noviapriani]

without a doubt Snowden is a hero and if it wasn't for him we would be still in the dark, and I'm sure he knows more and didn't leak informations that could endanger american lives but I bet there are even worse stuff that we don't know of yet, but what we know already is quite disturbing and I'm glad to see some countries starting to retaliate such as Germany and their recent annoucement to stop using Cisco and other american companies equipement since they are being bugged by the NSA, (this will push the companies concerned to lobby and have their equipment spy free if they want to keep doing business in the internationnal market)

I heard people are trying to elect him from the nobel peace prize,  I kinda think he does deserve to get one or some sort of reward for sacrificing is life in the USa

[Rigon]

In case you're interested, here's some background:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVwAodrjZMY

Snowden is nothing but a whistle blower. The traitors are the politicians in the U.S. Congress, executives and lobbyists of Corporate America and U.S. Chamber of Commerce who made them do it, who ratified PNTR Communist China in 2000 knowing full well that this action will provide Communist China with the funding, technology and manufacturing know-how and all these with multiple applications; commercial, space and military. U.S. corporations also provided training for Communist Chinese engineers and technicians in high-tech manufacturing processes. Now the Communist Chinese have a robust economy, military and space programs while we are broke and cutting back military funding and pretty much on everything.

[u9y42]

Your input and time was not wasted. I do think you speak the truth. It is very sad its like this. Could it ever be changed? And I guess most people would never care?

Oh, sorry; this ended up being buried and I didn't get to answer.

Most people have one (and depending on where you live, sometimes more than one) job, a family to take care of, bills they must pay, and a life they want to lead with as little trouble as possible; dealing with stuff like this on top of it all is not always easy and in the end, until they realize how it affects their lives directly, they won't do anything about it. And even then there will always be a lot of apathy, a lot of people who think they can't do anything about it, so it's just better not to waste time with it.

On the other hand, I'm sure there are those who would say that by comparison with people half a century ago, people today are far more engaged and far less tolerant of the abuses we're here discussing. As an example, during much of the Vietnam War you could see a lot of the information about what was going on in the media, and quite simply, nobody cared about it. It took several years before people even acknowledged what was going on and the opposition to the war really started taking hold. In contrast to that, you had opposition to the war in Iraq before it was even officially declared, and this even with the propaganda the media was spreading. So it's quite telling that the message in the media needs to be so distorted nowadays when compared to in the past; the ways to control the public are waning.

Now, part of the reason for this decline is the spread of alternative media, probably most of it operating through the internet. Most of these sources rely on public funding however, so donating to them is one way of helping things change. Another way would obviously be to make more people aware of them, so that mainstream media can't reach as many people. Of course not everyone uses the internet that much, so I guess at least advising people to get their information from more varied sources would be good: Aljazeera for example, where available, is a good source overall provided you're not looking for information on Qatar and its interests.

Whether or not this is enough, I don't know, but the tendency seems to be positive so far, if rather slow. But there are also those that propose more radical solutions, either in the form of disengagement with the system wherever possible, or a gradual replacement of the existing structures of power by something decentralized and under popular control.

[beetcoin]

without a doubt Snowden is a hero and if it wasn't for him we would be still in the dark, and I'm sure he knows more and didn't leak informations that could endanger american lives but I bet there are even worse stuff that we don't know of yet, but what we know already is quite disturbing and I'm glad to see some countries starting to retaliate such as Germany and their recent annoucement to stop using Cisco and other american companies equipement since they are being bugged by the NSA, (this will push the companies concerned to lobby and have their equipment spy free if they want to keep doing business in the internationnal market)

I heard people are trying to elect him from the nobel peace prize,  I kinda think he does deserve to get one or some sort of reward for sacrificing is life in the USa

if he can never be home with family, on his home country's soil.. i don't think any real "reward" is enough for him.

[unpure]

Can't vote yet.

I think he did it to write himself into history and become famous and to become a significant character.

[beetcoin]

Can't vote yet.

I think he did it to write himself into history and become famous and to become a significant character.

bullshit.. he is an intelligent guy. leaving your family, girlfriend, and career behind just to be famous and live as an outlaw, afraid of being murdered at any minute is not worth it. he has shown that he is a very good strategic planner, so he knew full well what would happen.

[audereyy]

erhm, sorry for a such stupid question, but how to poll? lol. It's a third time that I see some poll and just can't see any form with a radio buttons.

[u9y42]

erhm, sorry for a such stupid question, but how to poll? lol. It's a third time that I see some poll and just can't see any form with a radio buttons.

I think you can't actually vote until you're at least a Junior Member, which according to this thread, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=237597.0, should be when you have 30 activity, or at most about 11 days from now.

[MICRO]

Can't vote yet.

I think he did it to write himself into history and become famous and to become a significant character.

bullshit.. he is an intelligent guy. leaving your family, girlfriend, and career behind just to be famous and live as an outlaw, afraid of being murdered at any minute is not worth it. he has shown that he is a very good strategic planner, so he knew full well what would happen.

Yeah guys like him dont care about theirs lives , they only care about the truth lol .

[u9y42]

Yeah guys like him dont care about theirs lives , they only care about the truth lol .

You mean, guys and girls like Daniel Ellsberg, Chelsea Manning, Thomas Drake, William Binney, Jesselyn Radack, etc.? Do you have any idea what they sacrificed to be whistleblowers?

[MICRO]

Yeah guys like him dont care about theirs lives , they only care about the truth lol .

You mean, guys and girls like Daniel Ellsberg, Chelsea Manning, Thomas Drake, William Binney, Jesselyn Radack, etc.? Do you have any idea what they sacrificed to be whistleblowers?

Sorry for the girls. Also included . I dont rly recognize all of the names u posted. Maybe coz im not American ?

[Cryptopher]

Interesting poll.

From what I have read on the matter I would have said that he did it for the greater good. The fact that all it would take is one person who is privy to such information to divulge on how our interactions are being monitored (to some degree) makes it all the more amazing that it never came out earlier.

He must have known that in doing so he would be hailed as a hero by many, and a traitor by many others. Such a divisive decision, but one I believe he made for the benefit of letting us know what we would have otherwise been hidden from.