Centralized world power and Net censorship

Centralized world power and Freedom of Speech cannot coexist!

We live in a small world where the actual power structure is hidden and centralized. On the other hand, the Net is all about freedom of speech. Clearly, centralized power and the Net cannot coexist. It is obvious that centralized power is well entrenched so naturally it is the Net that has to back off. This backing off manifests itself in many ways such as malware, P2P clogging, complexity and cost of Internet access, sluggish roll-out, non standard components, obsolescence, information overload, lack of customization and so on.

But the most sinister factor is Google's dominance. The lack of competition allows Google to stick to its keyword centric syntactic strategy where it is able to censor websites much more easily. This SIGNAL vs NOISE kind of censorship is able to confuse even the most determined searchers. In any case, Google is more about Ads than about Search.

The only way to bypass such censorship seems to be to search on the basis of authors as opposed to keywords. This is the only way to keep the SIGNAL NOISE ratio from getting out of control. What is more worrying is not ideology, it is spin. This is the reason we should give up even on authors and follow only individual commenters. The logic is that authors are looking for numbers and only spins see propagation.

To follow individual commenters, we can click on their names, which is usually a link to their website or a page containing other comments made by them. We can also try and Google their name. Savvy commenters pick quirky (hopefully unique) screen names for this very purpose.

But never mind, here too, our rulers have found a way out: botnets. The common perception is that botnets are moronic spreaders of spam and some of the less moronic botnets even try and phish out our passwords. To a certain extent this is true because email is the purest form of addressability so our rulers need spam to dilute it. And also financial scams and economic hardship have forever been used to keep people under control. That such actions keep the insurance and security companies humming is welcome too.

In actual fact, botnets are highly sophisticated networks which are not only able to unceasingly dodge detection but also troll ALL forums and add to the NOISE everywhere. Even complex captchas are no deterrents to these sophisticated bots. It is amazing how many of the comments posted are actually from sophisticated trolls that never be exposed because these behave like human commenters and come from innocent IPs. Recent studies have confirmed that botnets use SEO techniques to capture search engine traffic on controversial keywords.

Moral of the story: Suspect anything and everything because PERCEPTION CONTROL is the biggest game in town.

Internet Censorship Alert

Internet Censorship Alert: Alex Jones exposes agenda to 'blacklist' dissenting sites (March 14, 2010) As I predicted, the Obama Administration is trying to shut down the Internet - at least the parts he doesn't like. Barack Obamas regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein has stated that he wants to ban conspiracy theories from the internet. Think about what this means - Every video, every website, every blog, every email, that exposes or just criticizes the government for any reason whatsoever could be labeled a "conspiracy" and taken down. Your home could be raided in the middle of the night, and you could be carted of to jail for criticizing the government. All they have to do is call it a "conspiracy theory". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqAWmBLFodE

Thursday, September 4, 2008

Is the 2007 U.S. Sub-Prime Financial Crisis So Different?

Is the 2007 U.S. Sub-Prime Financial Crisis So Different?
An International Historical Comparison*
Carmen M. Reinhart
University of Maryland and the NBER
and
Kenneth S. Rogoff
Harvard University and the NBER
Feb 5, 2008

http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/rogoff/files/
Is_The_US_Subprime_Crisis_So_Different.pdf (PDF, 40 KB)

As a benchmark for the 2007 U.S. sub-prime crisis, we draw on data from the eighteen bank-centered financial crises from the post-War period, as identified by Kaminsky and Reinhart (1999) and Gerard Caprio et. al. (2005):

These crisis episodes include:

The Five Big Five Crises: Spain (1977), Norway (1987), Finland (1991), Sweden (1991) and Japan (1992), where the starting year is in parenthesis.

Other Banking and Financial Crises: Australia (1989), Canada (1983), Denmark (1987), France (1994), Germany (1977), Greece (1991), Iceland (1985), and Italy (1990), and New Zealand (1987), United Kingdom (1974, 1991, 1995), and United States (1984).

The "Big Five" crises are all protracted large scale financial crises that are associated with major declines in economic performance for an extended period. Japan (1992), of course, is the start of the "lost decade," although the others all left deep marks as well.

The remaining rich country financial crises represent a broad range of lesser events. The 1984 U.S. crisis, for example, is the savings and loan crisis. In terms of fiscal costs (3.2 percent of GDP), it is just a notch below the "Big Five". Some of the other 13 crisis are relatively minor affairs, such as the 1995 Barings (investment) bank crisis in the United Kingdom or the 1994 Credit Lyonnaise bailout in France. Excluding these smaller crises would certainly not weaken our results, as the imbalances in the run-sup were minor compared to the larger blowouts.
Posted by amolpatil2k at Thursday, September 04, 2008
Labels: , , , , ,

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)