[liberationtech] when you are using Tor, Twitter will blocked your acc

[Seth]

I'm in agreement with pretty much all the points made, but how do you feel  
this approach?

1) ALWAYS publish the original source information via  
freedom/privacy/dignity respecting services using a name-space (a DNS  
domain,.onion,.gnu,.i2p,namecoin,whatever) that you control.

2) Syndicate a copy of that information to the CSW (Corporate Surveillance  
Whore) networks such as Google/Facebook/Twitter to obtain the widest reach.

3) Ease out of the CSW networks as your home grown following reaches  
critical mass.

-Seth

On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 16:10:55 -0700, Rich Kulawiec <rsk at gsp.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 09, 2014 at 11:36:01AM +0100, Amin Sabeti wrote:
>> Rick, I think you delete the problem instead of solving it!
>
> I suspect that's because I have a different definition of the problem. ;)
>
> Outsourcing your communications to a so-called "social network" whose
> interests (a) diverge markedly from your own and (b) converge to a large
> degree with corporations and governments is a fundamentally bad idea.
>
> To explain:
>
> Twitter does not exist to support your democratic movement or your
> LGBT civil rights efforts or your literacy campaign or your environmental
> initiative or your labor rights campaign or anything else.  Twitter  
> exists
> to make money.  The same is true of Facebook and all the rest.
>
> You're not a customer of any of these operations.  You're the product.
>
> 	http://computerfloss.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/facebook-and-you.jpg
>
> You're thus of no more concern to them than the 8,274th can of beans
> being loaded onto a truck at a warehouse.  You are a non-factor.
> You are irrelvant and expendable.  Their concerns are directed at
> (a) their customers, who make them money and (b) the governments of the
> countries where they operate, who can cost them money.  (Please see
> links I provided for background on these two points.)  Their customers
> and various governments wield money, power and influence; you wield:  
> nothing.
>
> Why would you even *consider*, for even a moment, trying to make
> them an important part (or any part) of your communication strategy?
>
> So from my chair, that's not just a bad idea.  It's a really bad idea.
>
> Now I know some people will say "but but but...".  I'm not very  
> responsive
> to that.  There was a perfectly usable, fine Internet before Twitter
> and Facebook and all the others.  There will be one afterwards, too.
> There were vastly better ways to communicate; there are and will be
> those as well.
>
> But rule #1 should be and must be: do it yourself.  Don't outsource any
> part of it to anyone.  Because when you do, you're subjecting *your*
> communications to *their* whims, necessities, business needs, profit
> motives, regulations, board of directors, shareholders, security holes,
> executive decisions, privacy breaches, government-mandated backdoors
> and censorship, contracts, court orders, and everyone/everything else.
>
> That might, if you're very lucky, work out okay for you anyway.
>
> But it's not the way to bet.
>
> ---rsk

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com