Showing posts with label infowar. Show all posts
Showing posts with label infowar. Show all posts

Sunday, April 17, 2022

Elon Musk Buying Twitter: Why It's a Bigger Battle Than You Think

April 17, 2022 (The New Atlas) - Elon Musk’s bid to take over Twitter and reduce “content moderation policies” is much more complex and possibly dangerous than it appears.



Twitter and other US-based social media corporations aren’t just bad corporations with equally bad policies - they are an integral part of US state censorship, information warfare, and - most importantly - establishing dominance in the information space of other nations around the globe.


This power will not be given up without a serious fight. 



References: 


The Hill - How an Elon Musk-led Twitter could change social media: 

https://thehill.com/policy/technology/3269056-how-an-elon-musk-led-twitter-could-change-social-media/

Grayzone - Facebook hires ex-NATO press officer and social media censor Ben Nimmo as intel strategist: 

https://thegrayzone.com/2021/02/09/facebook-nato-social-media-censor-ben-nimmo-intel/

Atlantic Council - Ben Nimmo: 

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/expert/ben-nimmo/

Graphika - Facebook Case Study: 

https://graphika.com/case_studies/disinformation-detection/

Reuters - U.S. State Department speaks to Twitter over Iran (2009): 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-election-twitter-usa-idUSWBT01137420090616

Alliance of Youth Movements Summit - 2008 (Archived): 

http://web.archive.org/web/20120311234911/https://allyoumov.3cdn.net/f734ac45131b2bbcdb_w6m6idptn.pdf

New York Times - U.S. Groups Helped Nurture Arab Uprisings (2011):

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/world/15aid.html?_r=3&pagewanted=1&emc=eta1

BBC - Milk Tea Alliance: Twitter creates emoji for pro-democracy activists (2021):

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-56676144


Wednesday, March 16, 2022

Information Sovereignty More Important Than Ever

March 16, 2022 (Brian Berletic - NEO) - The elimination of Russian media across the West and to a greater extent from across US-based social media platforms used worldwide, is a stark demonstration of the power the West still wields within global information space.


It is a wake-up call for nations around the globe regarding the threat of leaving a nation’s information space not only completely undefended, but entirely dominated by foreign interests.

Southeast Asia, for example, counts Russia as a close ally and an important counterweight to maintain a balance in global relations and even as a means of protection against Western influence and even interference.

Yet because Southeast Asian countries are overly dependent on US-based social media giants like Meta (Facebook/Instagram), Google (including YouTube), and Twitter, their respective information spaces have been flooded with anti-Russian sentiment and even outright hostility. Moreover, voices within each respective Southeast Asian country critical of Western claims and sympathetic toward Russia are being suppressed if not outright censored and permanently silenced.

The torrent of disinformation flowing out of US-based social media networks – targeting anyone across the global public dependent on these networks for a lack of local alternatives – is shaping opinions and helping generate support for Western foreign policy objectives even within nations directly threatened by the West and its foreign policy.

Thailand, for example, enjoys a longstanding and positive relationship with Russia. But because the nation has categorically failed to secure its information space, allowing it to be utterly dominated by US-based social media platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter, the Thai public is subjected to a daily barrage of anti-Russian propaganda forced onto users through features like Twitter’s “Twitter Moments” and its “Ukraine: latest news” section.

The feature consists of a stream of content from 55 “members” drawn from US and European government-funded media platforms including (at the time of writing) Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, the US National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and the UK Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office-funded Eurasianet, the EU-funded “EUvsDisinfo” project, and “First Draft” funded by European governments and American corporate-funded foundations like Open Society, the Ford Foundation, and Google.

The Twitter stream also features content from government-funded think tanks like the British government-funded Chatham House, the Center for European Policy Analysis (funded by armed deals, the US NED, and US military), the US government-funded Center of Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) as well as other obviously bias media sources including the Kyiv Independent based out of Kiev, Ukraine itself.

What Twitter pushes into the face of its users worldwide as supposed “experts and on-the-ground sources”  couldn’t be more overtly one-sided and politically-motivated – or in other words, such blatant propaganda.

That Western audiences would be subjected to such propaganda is a given – but the failure to secure the information space of nations around the globe far beyond the West and whose interests do not necessarily benefit from Western foreign policy objectives have now put their populations in danger and opened an otherwise easily avoidable vector of influence on each nation’s respective foreign policy decision making processes.

For Thailand, the population is under threat of being grossly manipulated in favor of adopting Western perspectives and demanding action from the Thai government to support Western foreign policy objectives regarding Russia’s ongoing special operations in Ukraine at the cost of Thailand’s long standing relationship with Russia and even at the cost of Thailand’s own long-term security and best interests.

On the other hand, China has fully secured its information space – leaving China not only in complete control of what comes in and leaves Chinese information space, but what takes place across it. China has developed a diverse ecosystem of platforms ranging from internet search engines, to social media networks, to e-commerce services and online news portals – all working in relative harmony with China’s interests and the interest of China’s allies.

Despite what seems to be the late hour of the West’s growing conflict with both Russia and China, it may not be too late for nations – including in Southeast Asia – to import Russian and Chinese platforms and tools for protecting Southeast Asia’s information space in the same way Southeast Asian nations import weapons from Russia and China to secure their physical domains.

Whether or not it is too late to make a difference regarding ongoing conflicts – such a move made either individually by nations or as a bloc such as through ASEAN – efforts can be made today to prevent the widespread sweeping propaganda campaigns of tomorrow we see today related to Russia and Ukraine.

It is the 21st century. Information space today is as important to protect as a nation’s land borders, shores, and air space. Any nation that is not protecting its information space is a nation that is not protecting itself at all.

Brian Berletic is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Tuesday, February 9, 2021

UK Bans China's CGTN for Being Too Much Like the BBC

February 10, 2021 (Brian Berletic - NEO) - The British Office of Communications (Ofcom) has pulled the license for China Global Television Network (CGTN) effectively terminating its ability to operate in the UK. 



A Bloomberg article titled, "U.K. Ends Chinese TV License, Stoking Tensions With Beijing," would claim: 

CGTN had asked for its license to be transferred to an entity called China Global Television Network Corporation, but “crucial information” was missing from the application, and the new owner would be disqualified from holding a license as it would be controlled by a body ultimately directed by the Chinese Communist Party, Ofcom said.

The article would also claim: 

Ofcom is required by law to prevent bodies whose goals are mainly political from becoming or remaining TV license holders. Last year Ofcom found CGTN breached impartiality rules in its coverage of Hong Kong protests. 

Yet if CGTN was actually guilty of this, and this standard was practiced as an international norm, it would spell the end of the UK's own British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) - British state media that admittedly exists to promote UK interests globally. 

Accusing CGTN of Being Too Much Like the BBC?

The BBC's own website claims: 

The BBC should provide high-quality news coverage to international audiences, firmly based on British values of accuracy, impartiality, and fairness. Its international services should put the United Kingdom in a world context, aiding understanding of the United Kingdom as a whole, including its nations and regions where appropriate.

While there is no doubt that the BBC operates under and to promote British values, it is doubtful at best that those values include "accuracy, impartiality, and fairness." 

Even studies carried out in the UK itself regarding the BBC's "accuracy, impartiality, and fairness" reveal quite the opposite. 

A 2003 Guardian article titled, "Study deals a blow to claims of anti-war bias in BBC news," would note: 

Downing Street's complaints about anti-war bias within the BBC appear to be disproved by an academic analysis that shows the corporation displayed the most "pro-war" agenda of any broadcaster. 

Of course, the US-led invasion of Iraq, eagerly promoted by the British state and British state media like the BBC was predicated on a deliberate lie regarding Iraq's possession of "weapons of mass destruction."

The BBC's lies were promoted specifically in service of UK special interests including corporate-financiers who sought to remove Iraq - as well as other nations - from the list of potential collaborators with a re-emerging Russia and a rising China. 

The BBC's deliberate campaign of lies about Iraq was not its first nor last role in supporting illegal armed aggression around the globe - including armed aggression the British military participated in. 

Similar lies would be spread by the BBC regarding Libya and Syria - with at one point in the Syrian conflict BBC staff rode with militant extremists as they invaded Syria from Turkey. 

Regarding Hong Kong - an area Ofcom cited as a breach of its impartiality rules - the BBC itself presented one-sided reporting, omitting mention of US government funding behind the Hong Kong protests and deliberately downplaying or omitting egregious violence carried out by the so-called "pro-democracy" protesters. 

The BBC's framing of the "One Country, Two Systems" arrangement was also decidedly leaning heavily toward the interests of the UK and far from any genuinely objective assessment of the colonial roots of that arrangement or the duress Beijing agreed to it under at the time. 

The West's Censorship Spree will Boomerang

In reality - shutting down CGTN and restricting other media operations from Eurasia is aimed at maintaining the West's primacy within the global information sphere as a whole, and continuing its unimpeded intrusion into the information space of other nations. 

However, habitually and transparent hypocrisy, coupled with the West's waning economic and military power, will open the door for other nations to take the UK's own practices of strangling alternative media within its own information space to finally and fully purge the BBC and other Western state media operations from their own, respective information spaces. 

Members of the Western media - who often organize themselves into "Foreign Correspondent Clubs" in foreign nations and operate more like public relations agents, intelligence operators, lobbyists, and agents of foreign interests than actual journalists - have already been exposed in recent years as the public grows increasingly aware of their role in Western-backed political interference around the globe in places like Libya and Syria in 2011, Ukraine in 2013-2014, and more recently in places like Hong Kong, Thailand, and now Myanmar. 

Coupled with Ofcom's campaign of censorship is US-based social media giants purging their networks of alternative media - both independent and state-sponsored. 

If allowing alternative voices to speak to international audiences on US-based social networks or to operate in the West is no longer permissible, why are US-based social media networks and Western media operations allowed to operate abroad with impunity? It is a lopsided equation that has long-since needed balancing - and one nations need to - and in some cases already are - addressing. 

Just like Western sanctions against an ever-growing list of nations who refuse to submit to the West's "international order" have ultimately begun isolating the West itself from the rest of the world - the same will happen to its media if the West finds itself incapable of striking a better balance and more respect for the nations its media operates in. 

Brian Berletic is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine New Eastern Outlook”. 

Friday, February 5, 2021

A Nation's Cyberspace Must Also be Defended

February 6, 2021 (Gunnar Ulson - NEO) - In recent months the role of powerful US-based transnational tech corporations has taken center stage. From censoring national leaders to purging entire political movements and discussions from their platforms, never has the power to influence what people can say, see, and hear been held in so few hands. 


Beyond this threat is a new form of information warfare where nations like the United States are able to enter into and dominate the information (or cyberspace) of a targeted nation, both by controlling traditional media, but also by using networks controlled by US-based social media corporations manipulate public perception, promote particular political agendas and silence critics of US foreign policy and interests. 

The US-engineered "Arab Spring" in 2011 was a dramatic example of how this type of information warfare could be used to help pave the way for more traditional (and more destructive) forms of warfare. 

Today, we are seeing entire conflicts play out online where not only influence is being sought - but entire nations are being cut-off, silenced, or otherwise impacted. 

The Need to Defend Cyberspace

In the 29th century, a nation needed an army to protect its borders and a navy to protect its shores. In the 20th century, with the invention of the airplane, air forces were required to protect this new frontier of warfare, a nation's airspace. 

Today the importance of cyberspace for communication, business and governance cannot be argued. But there appears to be a lag throughout the world in understanding the importance of this new frontier and the need to protect it just as vigorously as a nation protects its borders, shores and airspace. 

However, there are a few exceptions. The US clearly understands the potential threats to its own cyberspace since it is the primary threat to the cyberspace of nations globally. 

Nations like China and Russia have led the way in developing alternatives to US-based social media networks that have been weaponized and work hand-in-hand with the US government in executing foreign policy. 

Both nations also have protections about what sort of information can and cannot flow in and out of their borders, with China having clearly the most formidable defense in this respect. 

More recently, Russia has announced its ability to shut itself off from the wider, US-dominated Internet under extreme circumstances. 

Russian state media would report in an article titled, "Russia has plan to cut off country from ‘US-controlled’ global internet, but only as ‘last resort,’ says former President Medvedev," that: 

Former President Dmitry Medvedev, now deputy chairman of the country’s Security Council, told local media on Monday that, as a drastic last resort, Russia could cut off access to servers beyond its borders. According to him, with the way the internet is currently set up, “the key rights to control are in the United States of America.”

The article would also note: 

In recent years, Russia has made significant investments in developing its domestic online infrastructure, and Medvedev pointed to regulations that would allow the country to limit the web to its own autonomous networks. The politician was at pains to emphasize that these plans were contingencies, and that Russia would “really not want to” shut itself off from the digital world.

In many ways, developing a nation's domestic online infrastructure and ensuring independence especially during a crisis is similar to establishing well-controlled borders within the physical world. They are not borders any nation would ideally want to close or control too strictly, but having the ability to defend them when under attack is clearly a necessity. 

Russia's example is an example other nations should be taking to heart. Nations should also note the success Russia and China have had in defending their respective nations and interests within information space and cyberspace. 

A nation today without defenses for these new frontiers of social, economic and now military activity are like nations in the 20th century without air forces, or nations in the 19th century without standing armies and capable navies. Such nations open themselves up for "virtual" invasions and the disruption and destabilization of both political and economic activity. 

Examples of this are rife around the globe where US-backed regime change is now always accompanied by attacks on and invasions of a targeted nation's information space and cyberspace. Lessons are being learned the hard way that even small nations need to build up their own infrastructure as well as social media networks to fill up their respective spaces before an adversary does. 

Historically, those who control the lines of communication held a distinct, even pivotal advantage upon the battlefield. Today, these "lines" are now entire spaces permeating virtually every aspect of daily life. 

Considering all of this, nations that still do not take this threat seriously and do not define and then pursue the defense of their national information space and cyberspace place themselves, their people and their future in grave peril. 

Ulson Gunnar, a New York-based geopolitical analyst and writer especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Friday, July 26, 2019

"Human Right Activists" Celebrate Facebook-Twitter Censorship

July 27, 2019 (Joseph Thomas - NEO) - All Facebook and Twitter accounts associated with Bangkok-based geopolitical analyst Tony Cartalucci have been deleted. The extent to which both American-based tech companies went to target Cartalucci could be seen in a recent Reuters article reporting on it. 


Written by Thai Reuters correspondent Patpicha Tanakasempipat, the article titled, "Facebook removes fake accounts from Thailand, Russia, Ukraine, Honduras," referred to the author claiming: 
The accounts removed in Thailand used “fictitious personas” to promote narratives about Thai politics, U.S.-China relations, protests in Hong Kong, and criticism of democracy activists in Thailand, Gleicher said. 

“We were able to determine conclusively that some of the activities of this network was linked to an individual based in Thailand associated with New Eastern Outlook, a Russian government-funded journal based in Moscow,” Gleicher said.
The article cited “coordinated inauthentic behavior” and hailed the move as countering "deceptive political propaganda."

No mention was made of how writing anonymously is "inauthentic behavior" nor were any examples provided of what was deemed "deceptive political propaganda" and why.



Matthew Tostevin, a Reuters correspondent also based in Southeast Asia and whose Twitter profile unironically invokes the hashtag, "Journalism is Not a Crime" celebrated the systematic, coordinated censorship, claiming in a tweet:
“Tony Cartalucci” Facebook and Twitter accounts inaccessible after Facebook said it had erased accounts of a network linked to “an individual based in Thailand associated with New Eastern Outlook, a Russian government-funded journal”.
The term "associated with" is often used to imply impropriety without providing any actual evidence of it. Tostevin's defence of Facebook-Twitter censorship fails to explain how getting paid to write articles is wrong, especially considering Tostevin himself makes his living doing precisely that for London-based Reuters.

Human Rights Watch's Thai representative, Sunai Phasuk, himself a verified recipient of foreign government funds, also celebrated rather than opposed Facebook and Twitter's coordinated censorship.


In his tweet (translated from Thai), he claimed:

The end of IO [information operation]! Facebook and Twitter suspend the accounts of Tony/Anthony Cartalucci (source of "slim" information) as well as related accounts for using a fake identity, disseminating false information, creating hatred for democratic parties and human rights activists/linked to Russian IO.  
The term "slim" is a derogatory term used by supporters of Thaksin Shinawatra, an ousted billionaire politician now living abroad as a fugitive and guilty of the worst human rights violations in contemporary Thai history.

Sunai not only reveals a complete lack of impartiality as a supposed human rights advocate, but also is clearly promoting censorship of information he and his foreign sponsors deem "false."

Regarding claims of using a "fake identity," Cartalucci himself has repeatedly stated over several years that the name "Tony Cartalucci" is a pen name and that he writes anonymously, as many authors throughout history have, particularly those writing about sensitive political topics.


From Reuters to Human Rights Watch employees, attempts to "dox" Cartalucci and others presenting differing perspectives has become a disturbing trend.

Facebook and Twitter now deleting accounts of anonymous writers only serves to further chill the free speech "human rights advocates" like Sunai claim to defend.

Others celebrating Cartalucci's suspension from Facebook and Twitter include BBC correspondent Jonathan Head.

West's Losing Battle Amid the Information War 

Facebook and Twitter have targeted many other alternative media sites and individuals, often using accusations of being "Russian-funded" to smear targets and justify censorship. Conversely, should governments overseas targeted by US or British-funded sites or individuals attempt to shut them down, they are depicted as "authoritarian" and guilty of indisputable "censorship."

Such hypocrisy over free speech, media freedom and censorship stems from the much wider hypocrisy that drives Western foreign policy in general.

Other examples include decrying "Iranian aggression" while the US surrounds Iran with military bases built on nations the US illegally invaded and now occupy, or the US decrying unfounded claims of Russian interference in its domestic politics while openly funding opposition groups targeting Moscow.

The accounts of organisations and individuals across the West, including Reuters, the BBC, and HRW guilty of "disseminating false information" regarding "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq, Russian interference in US elections, claims of sarin gas used in Syria or covering up Western interference in the domestic politics of nations worldwide not only remain unscathed by Facebook and Twitter's "fake news" campaign, but the sole beneficiaries in an increasingly crowded information sphere where the alternative media has otherwise challenged their monopoly over information.

Facebook and Twitter are both suffering severely from attempts to control the flow of information on both platforms. A desire for alternatives is sought out not only by persecuted political activists being purged from both platforms, but from a wide and growing range of ordinary individuals who feel both social media platforms have become too invasive.

Cartalucci will likely continue writing and those who remain on Facebook and Twitter will likely continue promoting his articles. All the move to purge individuals and organisations from social media platforms will do is accelerate the search for alternatives.

Since Facebook and Twitter's censorship fails to address the fundamental shortcomings of Western foreign policy that people like Cartalucci expose and have gained attention from Facebook and Twitter censorship for, such censorship is a bandaid at best. At worse, it is delaying the inevitable conclusion of an information war neither social media platform (nor the special interests they represent) are winning.

Joseph Thomas is chief editor of Thailand-based geopolitical journal, The New Atlas and contributor to the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.   

Tuesday, March 7, 2017

Facebook Zero and the "People's Receiver"

March 7, 2017 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - "All of Germany hears the Führer with the People's Receiver," reads a World War II propaganda poster. It was advertising the Volksempfänger - or, the People's Receiver - described by the US Holocaust Museum which contains one of the radios in its collection in Washington D.C. as:
Goebbels's ministry recognized the tremendous promise of radio for propaganda. It heavily subsidized the production of the inexpensive "People's Receiver" (Volksempfänger) to facilitate sales. By early 1938, the number of radios in German homes surpassed more than 9 million, roughly one for every two German households. Three years later, this figure rose to almost 15 million, providing 50 million Germans with regular radio reception.

The radio lacked the capability to receive foreign radio stations, and on its dial, only German and Austrian stations were marked. This - in conjunction with radio jamming efforts - was a deliberate attempt to confine the German public's access to information to only that emanating from Berlin.

According to archives maintained by Yale University, during the Nuremberg trials after the war, Nazi Germany's Minister of Armaments and War Production, Albert Speer would remark (emphasis added):
Hitler's dictatorship differed in one fundamental point from all its predecessors in history. His was the first dictatorship in the present period of modern technical development, a dictatorship which made complete use of all technical means in a perfect manner for the domination of its own nation. Through technical devices such as radio and loudspeaker 80 million people were deprived of independent thought. It was thereby possible to subject them to the will of one man.
Should a similar dictatorship rise today, seeking to make complete use of all technical means in a perfect manner for the domination of global populations, it is very likely they would pursue similar methods - not over radio waves - but by dominating the 21st century's primary means of communication - the Internet.

Facebook Zero - the Modern-Day "People's Receiver" 

Facebook Zero is a service provided by Facebook in cooperation with mobile phone services worldwide. It is essentially the ability to use Facebook over cellular phone networks without being charged. It is part of a wider scheme called "zero-rating," which telecom giants are using to selectively provide content for its users.

It represents the complete circumvention of the concept of net neutrality in which all information traveling across the Internet is treated equally. Net neutrality has become the front line in today's battle for and against "independent thought," just as Germany controlling the radio waves within its borders represented a similar battled during the 1930's and 1940's.

How effective is Facebook's technical control over independent thought?

News outlet Quartz in a February 2015 article titled, "Millions of Facebook users have no idea they’re using the internet," revealed that (emphasis added):
Indonesians surveyed by Galpaya told her that they didn’t use the internet. But in focus groups, they would talk enthusiastically about how much time they spent on Facebook. Galpaya, a researcher (and now CEO) with LIRNEasia, a think tank, called Rohan Samarajiva, her boss at the time, to tell him what she had discovered. “It seemed that in their minds, the Internet did not exist; only Facebook,” he concluded.
 The article reveals that the same trend can be seen beyond Indonesia, across Southeast Asia, Africa, and other regions targeted by Facebook Zero's scheme. The article also reveals the obvious fact that surveys and research indicate the reality of Facebook Zero contradicts the stated goals of Facebook.

The article would claim (emphasis added):
Since at least 2013, Facebook has been making noises about connecting the entire world to the internet. But even Sheryl Sandberg, Facebook’s operations head, admits that there are Facebook users who don’t know they’re on the internet. So is Facebook succeeding in its goal if the people it is connecting have no idea they are using the internet? And what does it mean if masses of first-time adopters come online not via the open web, but the closed, proprietary network where they must play by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s rules?
Quartz' article would explain - in depth - how services are moving away from websites and toward Facebook - which becomes a problem specifically because of "Zuckerberg's rules."


The Modern Day Destruction of Independent Thought

Facebook is more than just a social media network. When it was first conceived, users were free to follow others as they wished, and would see posts of those they followed in real-time. By 2014, however, Facebook had begun tampering with how users viewed content from other users they followed.


A user's "News Feed" was now being regulated not by the user, but by algorithms created by Facebook. Content providers found their reach to their audiences plummet - and unless they were willing to pay to reach more users, it would remain that way.

Facebook would attempt to justify this new move in a section on its website called, "Organic Reach on Facebook: Your Questions Answered," where it claims:
Rather than showing people all possible content, News Feed is designed to show each person on Facebook the content that’s most relevant to them. Of the 1,500+ stories a person might see whenever they log onto Facebook, News Feed displays approximately 300. To choose which stories to show, News Feed ranks each possible story (from more to less important) by looking at thousands of factors relative to each person.
In reality, these "factors" may or may not have anything to do with what is relative to "each person." And with Facebook's growing involvement under the US State Department, manipulating political systems worldwide, and its recent pledge to join the war on "fake news," it is likely these factors will be more related to what special interests feel Facebook should make relevant, than the actual individuals viewing their own News Feed.

In other words, Facebook has constructed a modern day People's Receiver for corporate-financier special interests - with alternatives omitted from the tuning dials, and lacking the technical ability to receive alternative information from outside Facebook's carefully controlled information space. It is the modern day destruction of independent thought - an information cage many - like the German people during the 1930-40's may not even realize they're locked in.

Just as people fought hard to up end the Nazi propaganda machine during World War II, people today are and must continue to confront, undermine, and eventually displace Facebook's monopoly over modern day communication. Unlike Nazi Germany's People's Receivers, Facebook doesn't taint and skew the perception of just 80 million Germans, but includes a user base spread out across the planet and numbering nearly 2 billion.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine New Eastern Outlook.”   

Saturday, December 1, 2012

Decentralizing Telecom

December 2, 2012 (via LocalOrg) SOPA, ACTA, the criminalization of sharing, and a myriad of other measures taken to perpetuate antiquated business models propping up enduring monopolies - all have become increasingly taxing on the tech community and informed citizens alike. When the storm clouds gather and torrential rain begins to fall, the people have managed to stave off the flood waters through collective effort and well organized activism - stopping, or at least delaying SOPA and ACTA.

However, is it really sustainable to mobilize each and every time multi-billion dollar corporations combine their resources and attempt to pass another series of draconian rules and regulations? Instead of manning the sandbags during each storm, wouldn't it suit us all better to transform the surrounding landscape in such a way as to harmlessly divert the floods, or better yet, harness them to our advantage?

In many ways the transformation has already begun.
While open source software and hardware, as well as innovative business models built around collaboration and crowd-sourcing have done much to build a paradigm independent of current centralized proprietary business models, large centralized corporations and the governments that do their bidding, still guard all the doors and carry all the keys. The Internet, the phone networks, radio waves, and satellite systems still remain firmly in the hands of big business. As long as they do, they retain the ability to not only reassert themselves in areas where gains have been made, but can impose preemptive measures to prevent any future progress.

With the advent of hackerspaces, increasingly we see projects that hold the potential of replacing, at least on a local level, much of the centralized infrastructure we take for granted until disasters or greed-driven rules and regulations upset the balance. It is with the further developing of our local infrastructure that we can leave behind the sandbags of perpetual activism and enjoy a permanently altered landscape that favors our peace and prosperity.

Decentralizing Telecom 

As impressive as a hydroelectric dam may be and as overwhelming as it may seem as a project to undertake, it will always start with but a single shovelful of dirt. The work required becomes in its own way part of the payoff - with experienced gained and with a magnificent accomplishment to aspire toward.
In the same way, a communication network that runs parallel to existing networks, with global coverage, but locally controlled, may seem an impossible, overwhelming objective - and for one individual, or even a small group of individuals, it is. However, the paradigm has shifted. In the age of digital collaboration made possible by existing networks, the building of such a network can be done in parallel.
In an act of digital-judo, we can use the system's infrastructure as a means of supplanting and replacing it with something superior in both function and in form.

1. Mesh Networks: The first shovelful of dirt is to building a dam, as developing a rudimentary mesh network is to building a parallel "second Internet." It is a small project a small group of people can work on, with a lot of resources already out there to start with.

Image: A visual depiction of Project Byzantium's ad-hoc wireless mesh network. More information can be found on their website here. Such networks are being funded and passed out by the US State Department for use by "activists" to oust dictators in exchange for new ones, who coincidentally are US-backed. However, such networks also possess the ability to effect pragmatic change on a technical and local level.
.... 
While these networks have been used to help activists around the world circumvent censorship as they fight to depose one dictator in favor of another, a charade funded by the US State Department - mesh networks can be used more effectively to simply supplant and replace centralized infrastructure and create our own local socioeconomic paradigms, no politics necessary. Instead of protests, local communities could focus on business, socializing, and building with their own two hands the sort of environment they desire instead of squabbling over who they'd like to "elect" to decide these matters for them.

Project Byzantium, produced by Washington D.C.-based hackerspace, HacDC, meshes computers together wirelessly and features software that emulates popular services like Twitter, Facebook, Blogger, and Gmail. The result is a mini-Internet that works independent of both the Internet-proper, and the services typically used on it.

For now, it is being leveraged by the US State Department and a myraid of corporate-funded foundations. This system will be selectively distributed to activists in anti-Western nations, and denied to activists struggling in despotic pro-Western nations such as Qatar, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Cambodia, Uganda, and many more.

Image: A New York Times graphic depicts the differences between a traditional Internet network and a mesh network. While NYT maintains this would best suit "dissidents," presumably in nations designated "enemies" by Western governments, they in fact better suit people all across the West facing the corporate-cartels behind laws like SOPA and ACTA, as well as sweeps to disconnect, fine, or even imprison people for sharing files.  
....

The good people at HacDC have made their project open source and free to download. While they seek to help "activists," the mesh network solution they are sharing can easily be used to connect a local community together for constructive pragmatism instead of polarizing and destructive politics.

2. What will it Do?: With a mesh network running, a small area can begin operating as a miniature, second Internet. In the future, these mesh networks can be connected with neighboring networks, forming clusters, and collectively, eventually, they will run parallel to the existing Internet.
But until that happens, what exactly would a local mesh be used for? Luckily, there is a lot it can be used for, and when local communities begin to leverage this mesh to its full potential, a lot of what we depend on our "dictators" for will be better done by ourselves locally.
Education: The process of building a mesh network and maintaining it is an educational experience. Assuming that such a project would emanate from a hackerspace, the process of building, developing and maintaining the network could form the foundation of regular workshops and classes held there.
Such courses could be done as a community service, and for extra income. The knowledge gained by working on a mesh network, developing applications for it, or media to be shared upon it, could lead to local small businesses, or the pursuit of a career in information technology. Everything from web-design to programming and media production could be taught, giving people useful skills while using their projects to help grow the local network.
Of course, in the more traditional sense of education - lectures and coursework - this can also be hosted on local servers. Local tutoring houses can stream classes for those unable to make it to class. Lectures for university-level students could be streamed to larger groups than are able to fit in the average tutoring house. A local repository for open courseware (OCW) could be created by local schools.
Communication: The most obvious benefit of a local network would be having a means to communicate in a variety of ways with other members in the community. Here in Thailand, even in the city, there is a strong sense of community, and one that would be enhanced with a local-specific network. Services similar to Skype, Gmail, and Twitter could all be used to tie the community closer together, replacing expensive phone services with free local calls. Similar opportunities exist with community broadband initiatives. Phones with WiFi capabilities could still be used with existing networks, but have the option of tapping into the local mesh.
Business: Imagine a local mesh network with an interactive map similar to Google Earth that served as a local business directory where links and live updates could be made for those included in the local mesh. In a country like Thailand where everyone is an entrepreneur, this would be an invaluable tool to promote your local small business and give everyone on the mesh the ability to see what is new and what is available.

Many times people will go to the "big" store down the road simply because they are unsure of what is available locally. With a mesh network, one could easily check what is available and what isn't before even leaving home. Local businesses here, also often deliver - another task that could be made simpler with a local mesh.
An application for vendors that travel around a community could be made to show what they are selling and where they are, helping customers meet up with them.
Local media: As technology improves and as it is translated into open source software and hardware, the ability for people to produce increasingly professional media on a smaller budget also improves. In addition to file sharing and hosting media taken from the existing Internet, locally produced media can also be produced and shared freely - ranging from local news and music, to video productions and art.
Local news in particular, custom tailored to a smaller community, would better articulate and address the issues people are truly concerned about, rather than reflect a broader agenda simply sold to people by special interests. The news would be able to focus more around local announcements and events, warnings and security issues, accidents and safety issues.

Collaboration/Socializing: The Internet has allowed people around the world to collaborate and socialize, but often at the expense of never getting to know one's neighbor. A local mesh would help bring down these barriers and encourage neighbors to communicate more. The role of a hackerspace in the community organizing the mesh would already go far in bringing people together for workshops to introduce the initiative. A nation is like a body, the local community like a cell. Healthy cells make a healthy body, and similarly healthy communities will lead to a healthier nation.

Emergencies: In an emergency, a series of generators and permanent nodes in a mesh network could prevail where traditional networks might fail due to power outages. The role of local-specific news and communication, as well as a community that collaborates closer due to employing a mesh network would be obvious pay-offs particularly in an emergency.  

3. An Orderly Transition: Of course, any of this could be done on the traditional Internet. But with a hackerspace established in a local community and working on a mesh network, it is more likely that if a block was connected together, people would begin communicating, collaborating, and networking locally to take advantage of it. As these meshes are developed and success stories trickle out, these successes will be replicated elsewhere and built upon. The combination of mesh networks, hackerspaces, community gardens, community labs, local tutoring houses to augment education, and other local initiatives, all stand to build stronger communities.


Image: A community garden. Mesh networks aren't a cure-all, they are one part of the necessary infrastructure we must begin developing locally to create the world we want to live in. Consider also, community gardens, an excellent way of strengthening communities while decentralizing food production. 
....

The strengthening of communities leads to increased self-sufficiency and self-reliance, decentralizing not only our dependence on big-telecom, but on other big-businesses as well as big-government. The idea is not to collapse the current system, or declare "independence" from one's nation - but to initiate an orderly transition from the current centralized paradigm to one as sensibly decentralized as possible. Mesh networks are the first experimental steps in the realm of communications - one of many realms that must be decentralized in pursuit of this new, local paradigm.

There will always be a role for government, but that role needn't be all encompassing, nor need it be intrusive or overbearing. By undermining and replacing locally the special interests that grant governments and big-businesses in every country their power, we ensure that we not only unseat our dictators, but we remove the source of power their replacements will inevitably seek to abuse in their stead.

Where to Start?

Check here to see where the closest hackerspace/makerspace is and drop by for a visit. Express your interest in this project and see who else is interested in network hacking and mesh networking. If there are no hackerspaces in your community, look into organizing one yourself. Until then, Google Groups has served as a good meeting place for those with similar interests - perhaps there are other people in your area interested in mesh networking. Reach out to them.

The Project Byzantium site is a good resource to begin looking into regarding mesh networks, as well as Wikipedia's entry on Mesh Networking - especially the references and external links. Included is a DIY guide to building a rural mesh network (.pdf). 
....

If you are already developing or deploying a mesh network and want to share your story, please contact LocalOrg at cartalucci@gmail.com. Tell us about it, how you are using it, and where you see it going in the future.

Friday, September 23, 2011

Alternative News Site 'Activist Post' Deleted


by Zen Gardner

At mid-day on Friday, September 23, 2011, the popular alternative news blog, ActivistPost.com, was taken offline. Activist Post receives over one million views per month and has been hosted by Google’s Blogger since its founding in June 2010.

“We remain puzzled as to why Activist Post was erased completely by Google,” said chief editor and co-founder Michael Edwards. “When we tried to load our back-up file into our secondary Blogger account, that was blocked as well,” he added.

It remains unclear whether Google has acted to censor ActivistPost.com for their controversial reporting. Google is becoming somewhat notorious for clamping down on truth and liberty activists, of which Activist Post is known for.

“Clearly, this is a huge set back for us and the work we do,” said co-founder Eric Blair. “Our entire crew is working on resolving the issue and restoring the website. We certainly look forward to an explanation from Google.”

Activist Post will file an appeal with Google to restore the site in full, and asks their loyal supporters to make their voices heard as well. However, they also are seeking other hosting services to avoid these types of censorship issues in the future.

“We want to thank our loyal readers, contributors, and advertisers for being patient while we work this out. We plan to come on even stronger in face of this adversity,” Edwards said

Until Activist Post is back in action, you can find their work at Before It’s News HERE

Wednesday, August 24, 2011

Land Destroyer Twitter Account Suspended

Follow @LanddestroyerW for now.

by Tony Cartalucci



Quite obviously my coverage of Libya has a lot of people upset. I had received a concerted barrage of attacks by suspiciously similar accounts all tweeting 24/7 for weeks regarding Libya, all overtly pro-NATO just before my account was suspended. I was covering the Rixos Hotel and how even mainstream media admitted that snipers were targeting the building and Qaddafi's troops were attempting to protect it. Despite this the media suggests the journalists are "hostages." The troops have now, in fact, allowed them to leave. This was yet another hoax, on par with the "Saif al-Islam" hoax where a very much free and energetic Saif showed up to personally dispel BBC, CNN, Al Jazeera, NATO propaganda.



Image: Please note that the user is featuring the NATO-backed, Al Qaeda infested Libya rebel tri-color flag as their logo. This user is attempting to rally other cyber-trolls to censor Land Destroyer's message regarding the truth in Libya by concertedly reporting the account as "spam." (Click image to enlarge.)

....



Twitter may or may not be directly behind this - there is no way of knowing - however they have a "report spam" feature that is easily exploited by large groups of organized bloggers who can simply "report as spam" any message not to their liking. What sort of investigation or oversight goes on behind the scenes to vet these reports, I do not know, I was also never sent any sort of e-mail regarding why my account was suspended. This also occurred at the height of the Malaysian Bersih hysteria - where US-funded protesters were trying to gain momentum against Malaysia's decidedly anti-globalist government. A Land Destroyer account was also suspended as I exposed US funding and its agenda behind the street protests.



@landdestroyerW still works - so please feel free to follow Land Destroyer's commentary there. Also, Land Destroyer maintains a WordPress site http://landdestroyer.wordpress.com/ which is being updated and will continue to be updated in tandem with this site in case it goes offline.

Russian Gains in Bakhmut, Ukraine Overextended, & US Lectures India

 October 17, 2022 (The New Atlas) - Update for Russian military operations against Ukraine for October 17, 2022.  Russian forces are closing...