Re: [liberationtech] Spanish woman given jail term for tweeting jokes about Franco-era assassination

[F LM]

In the same article: 

"She is unlikely to go to jail because those convicted of non-violent crimes 
with a sentence of under two years are not imprisoned."

Totally unethical coming from The Guardian. With that title BS I'd even feel 
inclined to call it "fake news".

FL

> On 30-03-2017, at 09:53, Damian Fossi  wrote:
> 
> 
> Spanish woman given jail term for tweeting jokes about Franco-era 
> assassination 
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/30/spanish-woman-given-jail-term-for-tweeting-jokes-about-franco-era-assassination
> 
> -- 
> Damián D. Fossi Salas
> http://about.me/dam1an
> Debian GNU/Linux
> Linux User: 188464
> Jabber ID: dam1an en jabberes.org
> Twitter.com > http://twitter.com/dam1an
> -- 
> Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations of 
> list guidelines will get you moderated: 
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, 
> change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at 
> compa...@stanford.edu.
-- 
Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations of 
list guidelines will get you moderated: 
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, 
change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at 
compa...@stanford.edu.

Re: [liberationtech] The Paradox in Privacy Paradox

[F LM]

Could you elaborate on how is the Internet (in its current state) 
unconstitutional?

FL

> On 04-03-2017, at 07:42, carlo von lynX  wrote:
> 
> Shelley, excellent! You're a more patient hacker than I, you
> noticed that the redirect prefix can be removed. Maybe the
> fact that these mp3 links are downloadable is unintentional.
> If the redirector's job is to provide cloud-based content
> delivery, then these mp3s should only be accessible by the
> redirector servers. Proficient people like us keep finding
> these bugs in the matrix, but the bugs will get fixed over
> time, and it will get harder to bypass the tracking devices.
> 
> It is not a solution that proficient individuals like us can
> sometimes figure out ways to bypass the whole architecture of
> surveillance. I believe the web is currently anti-constitutional -
> it is structured to make the populace predictable. This undermines
> democracy. We're losing democracy by the minute - and we're doing 
> so unconsciously, because thousands of webmasters think their use 
> of Google Analytics isn't making that much of a difference. Even
> people working at Google do not see how this all adds up.
> 
> There's no big conspiracy against mankind, there is just eight people
> who randomly ended up owning half the world - the greatest condition 
> of injustice in history. We let technology do this, with a thousand 
> little gestures like letting ourselves be tracked as we listen to
> political radio.
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/jan/16/worlds-eight-richest-people-have-same-wealth-as-poorest-50
> 
> Bill Gates, Carlos Slim Helú, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Larry
> Ellison - they all made their wealth in the digital age. Add to
> that Warren Buffett who earns by managing other billionaire's
> money, then Amancio Ortega and Michael Bloomberg who may appear
> less digital - but I am sure somewhere in the details technology
> has its role in them becoming the richest beings on Earth in only
> a few decades.
> 
> According to "The Super-Rich And Us", the 1970s were the most equal
> period in human history. We managed to get from the best conditions
> of life on Earth to the worst in only four decades. And you think
> tracking has little to do with all of this? Think harder. Will you
> remember my words when you realize what's happening?
> 
> Jaromil, your tinfoil tool looks quite useful! It is in part
> replicating what Torbrowser does, but for those who insist on not
> using Torbrowser, tinfoil may be a step in the right direction.
> The problem is, it doesn't really matter much, if some individuals
> opt out of the surveillance game. When the population becomes 
> predictable, democracy is lost. Without democracy, how is humanity
> supposed to tackle its epic challenges?
> 
> 
> -- 
>  E-mail is public! Talk to me in private using encryption:
> http://loupsycedyglgamf.onion/LynX/
>  irc://loupsycedyglgamf.onion:67/lynX
> https://psyced.org:34443/LynX/
> -- 
> Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations of 
> list guidelines will get you moderated: 
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, 
> change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at 
> compa...@stanford.edu.
-- 
Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations of 
list guidelines will get you moderated: 
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, 
change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at 
compa...@stanford.edu.

Re: [liberationtech] The Paradox in Privacy Paradox

[F LM]

Is there something interesting, valuable or new on this, or is it just the 
typical generic info dedicated to unaware users?

FL

> On 04-03-2017, at 07:01, Shelley  wrote:
> 
> Or, try these direct links - they work for me:
> 
> Introduction (25.1mb):
> https://audio.wnyc.org/notetoself/notetoself013017_cms733414_pod.mp3
> 
> Day 1: What Your Phone Knows (12mb):
> https://audio.wnyc.org/notetoself/notetoself020617_cms733288_pod.mp3
> 
> Day 2: The Search For Your Identity (16.2mb):
> https://audio.wnyc.org/notetoself/notetoself020717_cms733289_pod.mp3
> 
> Day 3: Something To Hide (11.9mb):
> https://audio.wnyc.org/notetoself/notetoself020817_cms733290_pod.mp3
> 
> Day 4: Fifteen Minutes of Anonymity (13mb):
> https://audio.wnyc.org/notetoself/notetoself020917_cms733293_pod.mp3
> 
> Day 5: Your Personal Terms of Service (13.3mb):
> https://audio.wnyc.org/notetoself/notetoself021017_cms733295_pod.mp3
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Sat, Mar 4, 2017, at 01:43 AM, Shelley wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 3, 2017, at 01:30 PM, carlo von lynX wrote:
>>> 
>>> [...] Now that I am looking at the source.. what about extracting the mp3 
>>> links from it? Indeed, here's one:
>>> https://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/audio.wnyc.org/notetoself/notetoself020617_day1.mp3
>> 
>>> Oh no, it only downloads the first minute of the show [...]
>> 
>> That's exactly how I downloaded them, via the source code (also a
>> non-.js fan.)  I just checked them to make sure; they're the complete
>> mp3s.  They average < 15mb each.  If you can't grab them from the site,
>> contact me off-list and I will send them to you. 
>> 
>> Shelley
> -- 
> Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations of 
> list guidelines will get you moderated: 
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, 
> change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at 
> compa...@stanford.edu.
-- 
Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations of 
list guidelines will get you moderated: 
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, 
change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at 
compa...@stanford.edu.

Re: [liberationtech] Facebook: Building Global Community - What's your response to Mark Zuckerberg?

[F LM]

Relevant: 

Zuckerberg removed a line about monitoring private messages from his Facebook 
manifesto

http://mashable.com/2017/02/16/mark-zuckerberg-manifesto-ai/#OSZDnazMKkqD

FL

> On 17-02-2017, at 17:24, Thomas Delrue  wrote:
> 
>> On February 17, 2017 1:32:46 PM EST, Steven Clift  
>> wrote:
>> I invite everyone to read and comment on Mark Zuckerberg's important
>> "Building Global Community" letter:
>> 
>> https://www.facebook.com/groups/buildingglobalcommunity
>> 
>> This is a special Facebook Group I've created to connect lots of
>> disparate communities for a unified conversation that I will share
>> with my contacts at Facebook.
>> 
>> You'll find a link to his letter and posts organized by the five key
>> questions Mark asks and posts to share media reports and more:
>> https://www.facebook.com/groups/buildingglobalcommunity/permalink/502366400151315/
>> 
>> Or jump straight to his letter: http://po.st/zuckglobal
>> 
>> Also, while I don't have my first tele meeting with a foundation on
>> this until next week, now seems like a good time to share
>> E-Democracy's draft proposal for Local Civic Facebook Groups:
>> http://po.st/civicfacebookgroupsgoogledoc
>> 
>> Zuckerberg's letter highlights the absolutely vital role of "engaged
>> leaders" creating "meaningful groups." E-Democracy's magic mix is
>> supporting YOU - those leaders - in local communities working to
>> create local community and civic life Facebook Groups that foster
>> inclusive and supportive local online communities that foster civic
>> engagement and informed communities. So, if you want to add your city
>> to the list of the 22 cities with volunteer interest, email me -
>> cl...@e-democracy.org - with "Civic Facebook Groups" in the subject
>> line. We drafted most of this proposal in December, so we are ecstatic
>> that Facebook's next mission is so well aligned with our scrappy work.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Steven Clift
>> E-Democracy.org
>> 
>> P.S. You can jump in deeper now (we are just getting started):
>> 
>> 1. Supportive Communities:
>> https://www.facebook.com/groups/buildingglobalcommunity/permalink/502355863485702/
>> 
>> 2. Safe Community:
>> https://www.facebook.com/groups/buildingglobalcommunity/permalink/502356546818967/
>> 
>> 3. Informed Community:
>> https://www.facebook.com/groups/buildingglobalcommunity/permalink/502358683485420/
>> 
>> 4. Civically-Engaged Community:
>> https://www.facebook.com/groups/buildingglobalcommunity/permalink/502359110152044/
>> 
>> 5. Inclusive Community:
>> https://www.facebook.com/groups/buildingglobalcommunity/permalink/502359536818668/
>> 
>> Other Conversations:
>> https://www.facebook.com/groups/buildingglobalcommunity/permalink/502366996817922/
>> 
>> Media Reports:
>> https://www.facebook.com/groups/buildingglobalcommunity/permalink/502367900151165/
> "Facebook guy tells world it needs to use more Facebook or face bad times",  
> is that roughly the right summary of his 'insights' or am I way off? 
> 
> --
> Thomas
> (Sent from my mobile device,  please forgive brevity or typos.)
> -- 
> Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations of 
> list guidelines will get you moderated: 
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, 
> change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at 
> compa...@stanford.edu.
-- 
Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations of 
list guidelines will get you moderated: 
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, 
change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at 
compa...@stanford.edu.

Re: [liberationtech] [SPAM:####] Re: Decentralization

[F LM]

Because of the intangible nature of the internet, people don't treat the 
privacy of their communications with the same bar they would treat (we assume) 
paper correspondence.

Having said that, it's fundamental to understand that people won't leave 
Facebook, Gmail or Windows, simply because, beyond theoretical manifestos about 
abstract concepts such as 'privacy', they don't have any reason to do so. 

In fact, it's quite the opposite — people won't make the move from any of the 
aforementioned companies for the simple reason that everything will be more 
difficult. And let's cut the BS here — easy-to-use and functionality on the 
"alternatives" are not the best.

That's why I think is critical that the hacker community start focusing more on 
UX. Until my mother can see that Linux is as nice, easy-to-use and practical as 
Windows, only then she will start making the change (and even that won't 
guarantee that she leaves Windows, but is a basic a mandatory step). The same 
can be said about IM, social media, email and practically everything.

FL

> On 08-02-2017, at 10:06, Alberto Cammozzo  wrote:
> 
> Richard, you are right: maintaining email servers requires some skill
> and has a cost.
> Gmail does this reliably and is attractive for most non-technical users.
> 
> But now imagine this:
> Your favourite snail-mail service offers your university paper letters
> delivery, but at these conditions:
> 1) being authorized to open the envelope you send
> 2) reading the letter looking for keywords
> 3) attaching targeted advertising to your letter, according to keywords
> 4) build and keep a profile of you and your correspondents network
> 5) eventually deliver the letter along with advertising
> 6) deliver targeted advertising in envelopes directed to you
> Would your university accept, even in front of major savings? I don't
> think so.
> Despite being free, attractive and convenient this would be illegal in
> most countries (in Italy, where I live, secrecy of correspondence is
> even a constitutional provision).
> But, inexplicably, this is pretty much what we accept without hesitation
> with Gmail and most free messaging services.
> And still, secrecy of paper correspondence is socially required and
> legally protected.
> 
> Building a decentralized, reliable, secure, private, open and cheap (if
> not free) infrastructure for delivering and preserving emails at least
> as well as Gmail does is something we should have.
> By infrastructure I mean something like railways, telephone, power
> lines, roads, bridges, Internet connectivity: in certain cases they
> should or may be privately held, but with a major public commitment.
> Their main goal is providing a public interest service, build an
> enabling environment for social and economic life, not only being a
> business opportunity.
> And of course I'm not saying we should have national Gmails!
> I think something more similar to dn42.net and zeroNet.io, but at least
> as attractive and usable as Google services.
> See also the paper by Aymeric Vitte in this thread.
> 
> Bests,
> 
> Alberto
> 
> 
> 
>> On 07/02/2017 16:10, Richard Brooks wrote:
>> On the other hand, why are they using gmail?
>> 
>> Our university outsourced email to Google. They
>> software up to date, handle the security, provide
>> convenient cloud access (I personally dislike
>> their GUIs),  etc. For our university, this decision
>> probably did make our email traffic more secure
>> as well.
>> 
>> I am not wild about the decision our university
>> made, but for most users using Gmail is probably
>> the more reasonable and secure choice. Not the
>> choice that I would make for myself. Being spied
>> on bothers me.
>> 
>> But, if you want to have the broad base of users
>> move elsewhere, you need to address the clear
>> advantages that Gmail provides.
>> 
>> Political, social, and economics arguments will not
>> convince most people.
>> 
>>> On 02/07/2017 07:06 AM, Andrés Pacheco wrote:
>>> Signore Camozzo hit the nail on the head, twice. So then I have to draw the 
>>> proper conclusion...
>>> 
>>> 1. We need concerted action to set non-proprietary communication standards 
>>> at the application level, much like the TCP-IP Protocols did for the lower 
>>> layer(s)
>>> 
>>> 2. This action HAS to be POLITICAL, since it's not just a matter of 
>>> devising technical standards, but to have them ADOPTED by the majority. We 
>>> need the 75% of his email correspondents to not use proprietary email 
>>> platforms (and so forth and so on, and including me and this email itself!)
>>> 
>>> Ergo, it is at best naive trying to separate "Technology" from "Politics:" 
>>> all Technology is Political, and ignoring this only rubber stamps the 
>>> technology of the proprietary powers that be.
>>> 
>>> Not by chance it's Technology companies at the top of the "most valuable 
>>> company of the world" food chain: Google and Apple. If that's not a 
>>> political statement, then 

Re: [liberationtech] Boston event: How nonprofits can use Facebook to broadcast their impact??? (Feb 27th)

[F LM]

Sorry, I just forgot the most important point— blaming Facebook for this seems, 
to me, no different than blaming the manufacturer of the computer used to 
broadcast the crime...

FL

> On 25-01-2017, at 15:04, F LM <flucom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> As much as I value privacy and I hate Facebook, I think your message contains 
> critical fallacies on so many levels...
> 
> First, I'm not sure Mark Zuckerberg is a sociopath — and certainly I don't 
> have any evidence to claim so.
> 
> Second, couldn't it be possible that the group simply was not reported (small 
> group) and therefore not noticed until the transmission ended? We are just 
> making assumptions here.
> 
> Third, are you suggesting Facebook should be permanently blocked?
> 
> FL
> 
>> On 25-01-2017, at 12:39, Rich Kulawiec <r...@gsp.org> wrote:
>> 
>> [ Yes, I know I'm following up my own message.  There's a reason. ]
>> 
>> Here's what Facebook Live did this week:
>> 
>>   Facebook Live 'broadcasts gang rape' of woman in Sweden
>>   http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-38717186
>> 
>> Police in Uppsala were contacted in the morning by a woman who
>>   said she had seen a gang rape broadcast in a closed group on
>>   the site.  "You have been raped," one of the men said at the
>>   end of the video and then laughed, according to the viewer.
>>   Police later confirmed they, and "many" others, had seen the
>>   footage.  The Facebook group is said to have several thousand
>>   members.  Police confirmed that they had found three men, aged
>>   between 19 and 25, and one woman at a local apartment.  The
>>   men were arrested on the spot.
>> 
>> Read the whole article, all the way to the end.  It shouldn't be
>> surprising to anyone who's been paying attention: of *course*
>> a company founded by a sociopath repeatedly exhibits sociopathic
>> behavior: it's profitable.  Why would one expect anything else?
>> 
>> Now explain to me why you think it's a good idea to do anything
>> other than firewall their network ranges permanently.
>> 
>> ---rsk
>> 
>> -- 
>> As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more
>> closely, the inner soul of the people.  On some great and glorious day the
>> plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the
>> White House will be adorned by a downright moron. -- H.L. Mencken 7/26/1920
>> 
>> -- 
>> Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations of 
>> list guidelines will get you moderated: 
>> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, 
>> change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at 
>> compa...@stanford.edu.
> -- 
> Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations of 
> list guidelines will get you moderated: 
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, 
> change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at 
> compa...@stanford.edu.
-- 
Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations of 
list guidelines will get you moderated: 
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, 
change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at 
compa...@stanford.edu.

Re: [liberationtech] Boston event: How nonprofits can use Facebook to broadcast their impact??? (Feb 27th)

[F LM]

As much as I value privacy and I hate Facebook, I think your message contains 
critical fallacies on so many levels...

First, I'm not sure Mark Zuckerberg is a sociopath — and certainly I don't have 
any evidence to claim so.

Second, couldn't it be possible that the group simply was not reported (small 
group) and therefore not noticed until the transmission ended? We are just 
making assumptions here.

Third, are you suggesting Facebook should be permanently blocked?

FL

> On 25-01-2017, at 12:39, Rich Kulawiec  wrote:
> 
> [ Yes, I know I'm following up my own message.  There's a reason. ]
> 
> Here's what Facebook Live did this week:
> 
>Facebook Live 'broadcasts gang rape' of woman in Sweden
>http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-38717186
> 
>  Police in Uppsala were contacted in the morning by a woman who
>said she had seen a gang rape broadcast in a closed group on
>the site.  "You have been raped," one of the men said at the
>end of the video and then laughed, according to the viewer.
>Police later confirmed they, and "many" others, had seen the
>footage.  The Facebook group is said to have several thousand
>members.  Police confirmed that they had found three men, aged
>between 19 and 25, and one woman at a local apartment.  The
>men were arrested on the spot.
> 
> Read the whole article, all the way to the end.  It shouldn't be
> surprising to anyone who's been paying attention: of *course*
> a company founded by a sociopath repeatedly exhibits sociopathic
> behavior: it's profitable.  Why would one expect anything else?
> 
> Now explain to me why you think it's a good idea to do anything
> other than firewall their network ranges permanently.
> 
> ---rsk
> 
> -- 
> As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more
> closely, the inner soul of the people.  On some great and glorious day the
> plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the
> White House will be adorned by a downright moron. -- H.L. Mencken 7/26/1920
> 
> -- 
> Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations of 
> list guidelines will get you moderated: 
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, 
> change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at 
> compa...@stanford.edu.
-- 
Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations of 
list guidelines will get you moderated: 
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, 
change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at 
compa...@stanford.edu.

Re: [liberationtech] Fwd: [WhatsApp backdoor allows snooping on encrypted messages]

[F LM]

So I guess we can go back to what we were talking about a few days ago. You 
know, "fake news".

FL

> On 13-01-2017, at 21:26, Sebastian Benthall  wrote:
> 
> https://whispersystems.org/blog/there-is-no-whatsapp-backdoor/
> 
>> On Jan 13, 2017 9:14 AM, "Rich Kulawiec"  wrote:
>> It is long *past* time for everyone involved in the kinds of activities
>> discussed here to completely and permanently excise Facebook's
>> services/products from their computing environment.  No excuses.
>> 
>> ---rsk
>> 
>> 
>> - Forwarded message from Richard Forno  -
>> 
>> > To: Infowarrior List 
>> > Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2017 08:18:42 -0500
>> > Subject: [Infowarrior] - WhatsApp backdoor allows snooping on encrypted
>> >   messages
>> >
>> >
>> > WhatsApp backdoor allows snooping on encrypted messages
>> >
>> > https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jan/13/whatsapp-backdoor-allows-snooping-on-encrypted-messages
>> >
>> > A security backdoor that can be used to allow Facebook and others to
>> > intercept and read encrypted messages has been found within its WhatsApp
>> > messaging service.
>> >
>> > Facebook claims that no one can intercept WhatsApp messages, not even the
>> > company and its staff, ensuring privacy for its billion-plus users. But
>> > new research shows that the company could in fact read messages due to
>> > the way WhatsApp has implemented its end-to-end encryption protocol.
>> >
>> > Privacy campaigners said the vulnerability is a ???huge threat to freedom
>> > of speech??? and warned it can be used by government agencies to snoop
>> > on users who believe their messages to be secure. WhatsApp has made
>> > privacy and security a primary selling point, and has become a go to
>> > communications tool of activists, dissidents and diplomats.
>> >
>> > < - >
>> >
>> > Boelter reported the backdoor vulnerability to Facebook in April 2016,
>> > but was told that Facebook was aware of the issue, that it was ???expected
>> > behaviour??? and wasn???t being actively worked on. The Guardian has
>> > verified the backdoor still exists.
>> >
>> --
>> Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations of 
>> list guidelines will get you moderated: 
>> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, 
>> change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at 
>> compa...@stanford.edu.
> -- 
> Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations of 
> list guidelines will get you moderated: 
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, 
> change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at 
> compa...@stanford.edu.
-- 
Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations of 
list guidelines will get you moderated: 
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, 
change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at 
compa...@stanford.edu.

Re: [liberationtech] Fake News

[F LM]

As someone who doesn't live in the US, I find this whole "fake news" issue 
somehow confusing. 

It seems to me that it's a very wide concept created by media like The 
Guardian, NYT, etc., in order to discredit certain efforts by Trump supporters 
to influence voters based on false information (social media profiles, online 
articles, etc.). However, as time goes by, I see fake news coming out more and 
more from that same left-wing propaganda machine with misinformation, 
highly-biased pieces and more often than not, blatantly false reports.

What are the first public mentions of this controversial concept in the press? 
Perhaps that would give me a bit more of light.

FL

> On 11-01-2017, at 00:27, Manuel Amador (Rudd-O)  wrote:
> 
>> On 12/09/2016 04:51 AM, Yosem Companys wrote:
>> Anyone know of any academic studies showing that fake (social media)
>> news influenced the 2016 presidential election outcome?
> 
> The election was influenced by fake media alright, but the victory in
> the U.S. elections is *despite* the fake media, not because of it.
> 
> Fake media — CNN, WaPo, The Times., all that brainwashing nonsense — 
> was basically against the winner.  He won nonetheless.
> 
> *shruggie*
> 
> I don't have to live with that result, but it's the truth.
> 
> 
> -- 
>Rudd-O
>http://rudd-o.com/
> 
> 
> -- 
> Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations of 
> list guidelines will get you moderated: 
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, 
> change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at 
> compa...@stanford.edu.
-- 
Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations of 
list guidelines will get you moderated: 
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, 
change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at 
compa...@stanford.edu.

[liberationtech] Help

[F LM]

Need to change from the mime attachments to a phone-ready format.

Sent from my phone

> On 04-11-2015, at 04:50, liberationtech-requ...@lists.stanford.edu wrote:
> 
> Send liberationtech mailing list submissions to
>liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>liberationtech-requ...@lists.stanford.edu
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>liberationtech-ow...@lists.stanford.edu
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of liberationtech digest..."
> Today's Topics:
> 
>   1. New messenger to replace Adium and Pidgin (Kate Krauss)
>   2. Tuesday,November 3 -- Roxana Geambasu: Privacy in a
>  Data-Driven World (Yosem Companys)
>   3. Re: New messenger to replace Adium and Pidgin (carlo von lynX)
>   4. Communication tool comparison, new edition (carlo von lynX)
>   5. Re: New messenger to replace Adium and Pidgin (Axel Simon)
>   6. Call for Applications - International MA in NewMedia &
>  Digital Culture 2016-17 (Carolin Gerlitz)
>   7. Fwd: [ogp] Talking Inclusion at OGP: Is the digital divide
>  preventing inclusive governance? (Steven Clift)
>   8. Op-Ed on CISA from Startup perspective (Elissa Shevinsky)
>   9. Re: New messenger to replace Adium and Pidgin (ma...@wk3.org)
>  10. Re: Op-Ed on CISA from Startup perspective (Farieha Aziz)
>  11. The missing awareness: SMTP Security Indicator in
>  Email|WebMail clients (Fabio Pietrosanti (naif) - lists)
>  12. Re: The missing awareness: SMTP Security Indicatorin
>  Email|WebMail clients (Al Billings)
>  13. Re: The missing awareness: SMTP Security Indicator in
>  Email|WebMail clients (Rich Kulawiec)
>  14. Re: The missing awareness: SMTP Security Indicator in
>  Email|WebMail clients (poly)
>  15. Re: The missing awareness: SMTP Security Indicatorin
>  Email|WebMail clients (fauno)
>  16. Re: The missing awareness: SMTP Security Indicator in
>  Email|WebMail clients (Rich Kulawiec)
>  17. Re: New messenger to replace Adium and Pidgin (Travis Biehn)
>  18. Re: The missing awareness: SMTP Security Indicator in
>  Email|WebMail clients (ma...@wk3.org)
>  19. Re: The missing awareness: SMTP Security Indicator in
>  Email|WebMail clients (carlo von lynX)
>  20. Reminder: 2nd Annual International Conference on
>  Communication and Management (ICCM2016) (Dr Margarita Kefalaki_COMinG)
>  21. announcement: EQPAM New Issue! EQPAM Volume 4 Issue No 4
>  (October 2015) - Table of Contents/Website (Camelia Voinea)
>  22. announcement: Call for Papers - ECPAM'2015 &
>  EEEW-PAM'2015/Submission Deadline/websites (Camelia Voinea)
>  23. Re: The missing awareness: SMTP Security Indicator in
>  Email|WebMail clients (Rich Kulawiec)
>  24. Re: The missing awareness: SMTP Security Indicator in
>  Email|WebMail clients (carlo von lynX)
>  25. Data & Society Call for Fellows (Deadline: Dec 1,2016)
>  (danah boyd)
>  26. "Why Fund Tech for Nonprofits" (Deborah Elizabeth Finn)
>  27. Crowdsourcing Human Rights: Lunch and Discussion | Weds., Nov
>  4 at 12 p.m | RSVP (Kevin Hsu)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations of 
> list guidelines will get you moderated: 
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, 
> change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at 
> compa...@stanford.edu.
-- 
Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations of 
list guidelines will get you moderated: 
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, 
change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at 
compa...@stanford.edu.