1
14

[–] Turnip_Time 1 point 14 points (+15|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Reddit is already organizing to try to purchase their browsing history.

EDIT: Here is the site that one of the redditors created for those that might be interested. They are apparently trying to crowdsource the funds. The only problem here is that we have no way of knowing if the guy is a scammer or not.

3
3

[–] mamwad [S] 3 points 3 points (+6|-3) ago 

That would be hilarious if successful.

3
69

[–] jackofdiamonds 3 points 69 points (+72|-3) ago 

I'm not asking the Voat userbase to become Democrats, but can we all agree to give the GOP shit when they deserve it?

5
9

[–] mamwad [S] 5 points 9 points (+14|-5) ago 

Democrats suck on many issues, but mostly they act like Republican Lite. Internet privacy, at least in terms of private industry, is one thing they're obviously better on. Of course, they aren't against the NSA looking at your shit, but at least under democratic rule you wouldn't be at risk of having your internet history leaked to your employer.

0
14

[–] Riva 0 points 14 points (+14|-0) ago 

I don't think better. Obama had 8 years, 2 of which he had a majority and he could have passed roles to entrench privacy Rights online. Instead he did nothing and appointed Wheeler (who ended up being pretty good, but was a board member of Comcast for years).

0
2

[–] Apathy 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Democrats have already been spying on us for over a decade, just look at google and facebook.

2
31

[–] smokratez 2 points 31 points (+33|-2) ago 

We've been wanting to get the neo cons and traitors to our country out for years.

0
3

[–] bikergang_accountant 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago  (edited ago)

You have to be more organized around primary time.

Order in which people pay attention to things:

Presidential
Presidential primary
Congress
Local
Local primary
Congressional primary

3
1

[–] spookybm 3 points 1 point (+4|-3) ago 

Pretty sure this is just Republicans wanting Trump to fail, because Trump was not originally part of the GOP

0
1

[–] TH3_1D10T 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Oh, hell yeah.

0
3

[–] mrtoker 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Most websites have trackers on them already

2
1

[–] mamwad [S] 2 points 1 point (+3|-2) ago 

There are extensions that allow you to block trackers.

0
0

[–] mrtoker ago  (edited ago)

I know I use them. When doing research for a digital marketing firm in college I found as much as 10% of the population was using them. While this is significant in numbers overall most people do not. I would theorize mobile is even less.

edit: Current percentages could be different now

6
-2

[–] smokratez 6 points -2 points (+4|-6) ago 

I remember you making a post saying that dividing the country in a two party system is stupid. Guess you don't mind now for some reason.

3
8

[–] mamwad [S] 3 points 8 points (+11|-3) ago 

I reported straight facts.

6
-6

0
1

[–] 8593406? 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Dividing a country into a two party system is stupid. There should be at least three parties that are politically viable as competition with each other.

Edit: Looking at your conversation with the other guy, I may not fully understand your position, and that you're just pointing out someone's hypocrisy, which is good. So if you agree with my stance, then cool. Otherwise, I stand by my comment.

0
5

[–] Sigurdtheold 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

It's funny how a few years ago we had a mixing of votes over this same issue. The real problem here is the lobbyists just rolled some cash out and with both parties acting like retards by voting down the line we get shoveled shit like this. We need money out of politics!

1
1

[–] TheStapler 1 point 1 point (+2|-1) ago 

In democracy, money == politics.

0
2

[–] NeoGoat 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

In a better democracy, this corruption would be illegal.

0
0

[–] LazarusLong ago 

That is every form and actual instance of government, ever.

0
0

[–] eggmunkee ago 

Actually, persuasion == politics. When degeneracy rules the nation, money is all it takes to buy peoples opinions, which includes the voters that are bought by promises of other people's money. A thousand times, the people have sacrificed their rights for something illusory and usually, stolen goods, so counter-persuasion against the large-scale opinion forming press is how you actually fight "money in politics".

Asking politicians to stop selling themselves is unlikely to succeed, while we could be more informed about what we demand and expect from politicians we do help elect. Asking corporate/globalist news outlets to stop selling themselves is unlikely to succeed, while we could stop consuming their product and financially support truthful news outlets which change the opinion and worldview landscape and enable us to actually work on real problems, as opposed to the created crises that we are usually chasing after. These things are harder than saying "get money out of politics" though, and I'm not saying I live up to this, but I think these are real solutions in part.

6
-2

[–] Troll 6 points -2 points (+4|-6) ago 

All right these 2 things have to be said.

  1. The Republicans doing shit like this are only servants of the Establishment and the Dems that pay them to destabilize the country. So putting with shit like this for another 2 years before the midterm elections until Trump gets the chance to wipe them all out is something I'm ready for and I've been ready since Nov. the 8th. I also know that establishment whore would push for shit like this even harder with Hilary in power.

  2. mamwad and shitheads upvoting and leaving "disgruntled" comments in these false flag threads and submissions on Voat are nothing more than another batch of ShareBlue and CTR dipshits that are here with tried divide & conquer tactics. By presenting the establishment republicans as the enemy (which they are) they will eventually try to present Trump as one of the establishment figures in order to start turning his supporters against him. They fear Don and people loyal to him to start overtaking the republican party from the establishment because that means losing FBI, CIA, NSA support for their manipulative bullshit.

My advice to Voaters: when you see this shit from mamwad and the likes, just downvoat and move on. You can also use this post of mine as a copy-pasta warning for the people who are unaware how these dipshits operate on Voat. Some of them operate in the open like Sane, others are subtle, like this OP whore over here.

4
-4

2
-2

[–] HowieCameUnglued 2 points -2 points (+0|-2) ago 

SO we shouldn't have a discussion about this in news because of the person who posted it? Are you that partisan?

0
1

[–] statik 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

If this was something Trump was opposed to, per what you implied in your first bullet, then he could just veto it. Do you think that will happen?

0
6

[–] Gorillion 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Posted this in the other thread on v/all:

Apparently 4chan is disputing the MSM spin on this. May be Fake News, or heavy spin. And with Lamewad posting this with a heavy anti-right slant, I wouldn't take the OP viewpoint as gospel.

Also, I had to go to fucking Reddit /kia to get another angle on this. Holy shit VOAT is going to crap. Fucking libtards and shills are all over v/all.

[–]BearPuncher1980 86 points 10 hours ago

I posted this in another thread so I guess I'll post it in this one also. I got this off of a 4chan thread about this so it's not mine and you should take it with a grain of salt until someone else confirms it;

Transparency. Recognizing the fundamental importance of transparency to enable consumers to make informed purchasing decisions, we require carriers to provide privacy notices that clearly and accurately inform customers about what confidential information the carriers collect, how they use it, under what circumstances they share it, and the categories of entities with which they will share it. We also require that carriers inform their customers about customers’ rights to opt in to or opt out (as the case may be) of the use or sharing of their confidential information. We require that carriers present their privacy notice to customers at the point of sale, and that they make their privacy policies persistently available and easily accessible on their Web sites, applications, and the functional equivalents thereof. Finally, consistent with FTC best practices and with the requirements in the CPBR, we require carriers to give their customers advance notice of material changes to their privacy policies.)

Find the transcript of the discussion of the vote by clicking on "All Actions" in the congress.gov page about the vote and opening all links (example: https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/volume-163/senate-section/page/S1925)))) Skim through the transcript to find out what the vote is really about (in this case, whether the FCC or FTC should govern privacy rules

Anybody got the 4chan link?

Bit of extra commentary:

[–]PROH777 47 points 7 hours ago

So the proposal was more about deciding which agency sets the rules for privacy, rather than letting ISPs do anything with that information without informing the consumer?

permalinkembedsaveparentreportreply

[–]Boomdegasser 45 points 7 hours ago

Pretty much, but you cannot preemptively bash Trump then.

permalinkembedsaveparentreportreply

[–]alos20 10 points 7 hours ago*

https://iapp.org/news/a/the-att-v-ftc-common-carrier-ruling-and-how-it-changes-common-carrier-regulation/

basically, the new obama put in the new FCC regulations is that the FTC doesn't have power over ISPs anymore. This new bill does NOT give that authority back to the FTC.

Thread link: https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/623y22/why_is_this_great_sub_not_talking_about_the_new/

JFC, I can't fucking believe I'm now having to go back to Reddit to get the "Alt View" on big news like this. Voat, pick up your fucking game.

6
7

[–] num 6 points 7 points (+13|-6) ago  (edited ago)

This isn't a rep vs dem issue at all. Google, facebook and others have been selling your data for years, this bill just levels the playing field because they (The ISPs) are trying to profit more from the pipe they own and supply. If you use SSL which you should, they can't see much outside of IP and URL anyway.

If you wanna get your titties twisted about something, go protest for net neutrality laws.

This is meaningless and is just leveling hte playing field and removing the monopoly from google and facebook and the others who have been selling the shit you give them for years because FREE EMAIL AND CHAT OMG !

You want more jobs? companies need to profit, they wont charge you more but they will sell your data and grow and hire more. This is pretty necessary for growth and it takes the info monopoly away from the content providers who would be dead in the water without the ISPs

tards all worked up over nothin'

2
7

[–] mamwad [S] 2 points 7 points (+9|-2) ago 

Most people have a choice when it comes to search engines, email clients, and social media. Most people do not have much of a choice when it comes to ISPs. If someone really wants to avoid Google and Facebook, they can do so relatively easily. They can use Tutanota for email, ixquick for search, and avoid facebook altogether. Furthermore, Google and facebook are free services, so users might expect that they give up something for them.

Most people don't have a choice when it comes to ISPs, you pay for it, and they you can't stop them from snooping without paying for an additional service or using TOR. They aren't comparable.

3
3

[–] num 3 points 3 points (+6|-3) ago 

It's very comparable, this is collecting nothing more than was already being collected.

Now they can just sell the data to advertisers instead of give it away for free to the police. Anyone who is THAT concerned should already be on a VPN on their neighbors WIFI.

5
-5

0
0

[–] AndinBriwel ago  (edited ago)

"...they won't charge you more, but they will sell your data and grow and hire more."

In that case, then, just like fakebook and gmale are free, internet service and cel service should be free to me, since I'm now the product of their venture.

The difference is, before this measure, I was the customer of the ISP. I pay them, and they deliver a service. It's a good relationship, most of the time, because it's in their best interest financially to keep me happy. In fact, if they fail to deliver fair service to me, the customer, they cease to exist. I am the customer, and the internet access or mobile service is the product.

Meanwhile, if I have a fakebook acct, I am not a customer of fakebook. They are paid by advertisers to aggregate my habbits, personal views, and interests, and rent my eyeballs to the advertisers. In return for loaning fakebook my eyeballs, they allow me to give them all my information for free. In that situation, the advertiser is the customer, and I am the product.

Welcome to the new world, where the ISP now sells you to any highest bidder. You are now the product, and the service they provide is just a means to farm you. To make it all even better, they now charge you for being farmed. Imagine a strawberry having to pay you to be eaten by you. Except, you're the strawberry.

0
0

[–] ThisWeirdWeirdWorld ago 

Welcome to the new world, where the ISP now sells you to any highest bidder.

You mean welcome to the old world, they pretty much had this ability since the first internet service provider opened up shop.

0
0

[–] Aaaron ago 

If you use SSL which you should, they can't see much outside of IP and URL anyway.

.......................seriously what more do you need? SSL can only hide the page you want to view but the domain is always known. How does that help protect your internet history?

It doesn't.

1
1

[–] heroinwinsagain 1 point 1 point (+2|-1) ago 

put rand paul on the fucking list. what a fucking loser.

1
1

[–] heroinwinsagain 1 point 1 point (+2|-1) ago 

if trump vetoed this, i would shit a gold brick

0
0

[–] voats4goats ago 

1
-1

[–] 8593430? 1 point -1 points (+0|-1) ago  (edited ago)

I would too. But it would be a strong move for Trump; what better way to solidify his support even more and turn some liberal heads than by, more-or-less, defending the people's right to privacy on the nets. How could you call the man a fascist after he defended your right to privacy.

load more comments ▼ (9 remaining)