Cryofan's Journal: ./ editors banned me for excessive posting (for 5 posts)

Here is the message I received from the Slashdot editors: Due to excessive bad posting from this IP or Subnet, comment posting has temporarily been disabled. If it's you, consider this a chance to sit in the timeout corner . If it's someone else, this is a chance to hunt them down. If you think this is unfair, please email [e-mail] with your MD5'd IPID and SubnetID, which are "6251e5ee1bd0d49c22b79a2ea3a8a76c" and "cd3752d02d0211105ec3821e0c3c2335" and (optionally, but preferably) your IP number "216.39.197.228" and your username "Cryofan". Here is the thread in which i was posting: cheap broadband + P2P = The Neoliberalism Killer? (Score:-1, Troll) by Cryofan (194126) on Saturday June 05, @08:55PM (#9347558) (http://www.geocities.com/cryofan/ | Last Journal: Monday July 14, @05:23PM) Wireless broadband could be the killer of neoliberalism. I am no networking expert, but it seems to me that with widely available wireless broadband, it could cause broadband to drop sharply in price, or at least more price pressure downward on broadband in general, as it would eliminate the "last mile" costs. For those not "in the know," neoliberalism might be roughly defined as American-style capitalism, complete with globalization, lack of universal healtcare, and with a weak social safety net. Some European countries have a weaker form of neoliberalism. The Scandanavian social democracies are farther away from neoliberalism. Socialism is even farther away. I propose that Neoliberalism has been, and can only be, maintained through the use of mass media propaganda, and virtually one sided propaganda at that. It depends on high-barrier-to-entry mass media (TV, radio and urban newspapers). I would say that neoliberalism rise tracked the growth of such mass media, and the ownership consolidation of such. The internet could kill neoliberalism, just as it is, IF more Americans were into in-depth reading. But they are not. THerefore, the leftist propaganda that would be needed to kill neoliberalism needs to be audiovisual, either talk radio, or video in the form of movies, dramas, TV sitcoms, documentaries, which could be used to propagate anti-neoliberal, leftist memes. For example, movies that highlighted the differences between European social democracies and America, in terms of political economy. With ever-decreasing prices in digital movie cameras and video editing software being virtually free, such movies, documentaries etc, could be made cheaply. But how do you distribute them? In the near future, we will have ever-cheaper computers. And if broadband gets cheap, then P2P networks could be used to distribute freely leftist movies propagating leftist memes. I realize this is already possible, but the problem is that not enough people have broadband and computers. Once Americans are turned away from neoliberalim, it will die, as it is the military might of America that is the protector of neoliberalism. Fight for your Welfare State! [geocities.com]) [ Reply to This ] * Re: cheap broadband+P2P=The Neoliberalism Killer? by Cryofan (Score:-1) Saturday June 05, @09:14PM o Re: cheap broadband+P2P=The Neoliberalism Killer? by Magila (Score:2) Saturday June 05, @09:29PM + How in the HELL is it even a little offtopic?! by Cryofan (Score:-1) Saturday June 05, @09:34PM * Re:cheap broadband+P2P=The Neoliberalism Killer? by Cryofan (Score:-1) Saturday June 05, @09:17PM o Re:cheap broadband+P2P=The Neoliberalism Killer? by Cryofan (Score:-1) Saturday June 05, @10:27PM * Re:cheap broadband + P2P = The Neoliberalism Killer by Anonymous Coward Sunday June 06, @02:25AM Here is the thread URL: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/06/05/2336247&mode=thread&tid=126&tid=137&tid=187&tid=193&tid=95 This was nothing but rank censorship and rank bullshit from the slashdot editors. Here is the reply from me which they censored: In a previous post, which started this thread, I wrote: "Wireless broadband could be the killer of neoliberalism. I am no networking expert, but it seems to me that with widely available wireless broadband, it could cause broadband to drop sharply in price, or at least more price pressure downward on broadband in general, as it would eliminate the "last mile" costs. For those not "in the know," neoliberalism might be roughly defined as American-style capitalism, complete with globalization, lack of universal healtcare, and with a weak social safety net. Some European countries have a weaker form of neoliberalism. The Scandanavian social democracies are farther away from neoliberalism. Socialism is even farther away. I propose that Neoliberalism has been, and can only be, maintained through the use of mass media propaganda, and virtually one sided propaganda at that. It depends on high-barrier-to-entry mass media (TV, radio and urban newspapers). I would say that neoliberalism rise tracked the growth of such mass media, and the ownership consolidation of such. The internet could kill neoliberalism, just as it is, IF more Americans were into in-depth reading. But they are not. THerefore, the leftist propaganda that would be needed to kill neoliberalism needs to be audiovisual, either talk radio, or video in the form of movies, dramas, TV sitcoms, documentaries, which could be used to propagate anti-neoliberal, leftist memes. For example, movies that highlighted the differences between European social democracies and America, in terms of political economy. With ever-decreasing prices in digital movie cameras and video editing software being virtually free, such movies, documentaries etc, could be made cheaply. But how do you distribute them? In the near future, we will have ever-cheaper computers. And if broadband gets cheap, then P2P networks could be used to distribute freely leftist movies propagating leftist memes. I realize this is already possible, but the problem is that not enough people have broadband and computers. Once Americans are turned away from neoliberalim, it will die, as it is the military might of America that is the protector of neoliberalism." >>>> IN response, you wrote: "Are you using some non-standard definition of "neoliberalism"?? No. THis is the standard definition as widely used in most of the western world, but it is a term known by few Americans. Funny, because America is the epicenter of neoliberalism. You wrote: "Perhaps you mean "neoconservatism", " Neoconservative == conservative neoliberal (i.e., hawkish warmonger) You wrote: "since liberal (and left) are associated (here in the US, where slashdot exists) with socialism. You say "Socialism is even farther away [from liberalism]" but you actually have that backwards (unless you still live in communist russia). Socialism is a liberal policy. " American liberals are to the right of European conservatives. That is because America is the center of neoliberalism. Both the political parties here are deeply conservative. American Democrats are neoliberals, as are American Republicans. The Bush II regime is neoconervative, whereas the Clinton regime was merely neoliberal. You wrote: "It is not a conservative policy, because conservatives don't want change. Socialism (for everyone not in a socialist country, which is most of us) is therefore not conservative. Universal healthcare is a liberal policy." Universal Healthcare is indeed a liberal policy, but it is not a neoliberal policy, which is why they have it in Europe, but not in America. We are the center of neoliberalism here in America. You wrote: "Almost all media is owned by extremely large corporations, who are traditionally highly conservative. " Very true! You wrote: "The so called "liberal media" is just FUD by the republicans do hide the fact that all large media outlets are in fact owned and controlled by republicans, specifically by very conservative republicans. And why wouldn't they be conservative? They are the ones already in power. If they were liberals, they'd want things to change, rather than stay the same. Even Democrats aren't liberal though. They are just slightly less conservative than republicans. So I'm confused as to why you call it "neoliberalism". Neoliberalism refers to "economic liberalism", where the rich people get to use their money more or less unfettered, and where the "free market" is set up to favor those with the most money, whereas "liberalism" refers to "political liberalism", where the govt is used to provide a better life for the majority of the citizens. Here is a primer on neoliberalism. Neoliberalism is a well known term and commonly used term in the rest of the Western world, but is little used here in America, where the only people who seem to be familiar with the word are those who have a special interest in politics. Gee, I wonder why Americans are not familiar with neoliberalism.....