It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Picklesneeze
a reply to: ChesterJohn
I honestly think that the internet shut downs were ordered by the current administration as a trial run to see if they can stop Americans from getting the truth about obama and hillary from Wikileaks.
But,I'm sure that obama has more false flag attacks up his sleeve that he can blame on the Russians. (Ones that don't involve the internet)
originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: ChesterJohn
The "handover of control" is just for naming of websites
If the us had full control of the internet this whole time, why wouldn't we have cut off his internet long ago?
The big internet companies, ie google, facebook, twitter, yahoo... and Govts. have been manipulating what you see on the internet for as long as it's been around, I haven't noticed anything different.
It is manipulated and controlled, I just think your blame/concerns are misplaced.
originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan
So if I was in your house and I was downloading Julian Assange's trove of wikileak files it is ok though, right?
It seems it was ok until the files were something that would hurt Hillary and now they cut it off. But for 4 years they did nothing to stop him. so why stop him now? Unless they are being pressured, threatened or have something to lose.
Always ok for the left but never for the right.
In 2013, President Correa signed a communications law that gives the government broad powers to limit free speech. The law requires all information disseminated by media to be “verified” and “precise,” opening the door to censorship by allowing the government to decide what information meets these vague criteria. It also prohibits “media lynching,” defined as “repeatedly disseminating information with the purpose of discrediting or harming the reputation of a person or entity.” In addition, it prohibits what it terms “censorship,” which, under the law’s definition, includes the failure of private media outlets to cover issues that the government considers to be of “public interest.”
a reply to: EightAhoy
I imagine those with an unfriendly disposition towards Assange will take great interest in the outcome of Equador's 2017 election. I wonder how the people there feel about the situation as it is now, and if it were to suddenly change in a way that is detrimental to the well-being of Assange? Are they proud of their current status? Do they care? Will they care? Does it matter (to their gov)? Would it be possible for him to escape to somewhere safer? ...without being droned in the process?