• dhork@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    218
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    11 months ago

    “We’re losing a lot of people because of the internet,” Trump said. “We have to go see Bill Gates and a lot of different people that really understand what’s happening. We have to talk to them about, maybe in certain areas, closing that Internet up in some way. Somebody will say, ‘Oh freedom of speech, freedom of speech.’ These are foolish people. We have a lot of foolish people.”

    He said this in 2015, folks. And we still elected him. We’re fucked.

  • Tedesche@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    79
    ·
    11 months ago

    “He could invoke powers we’ve never heard a President of the United States invoke—potentially to shut down companies or turn off the internet or deploy the U.S. military on U.S. soil,” he added. "We don’t know because the things that are in there, the emergency powers of the president, aren’t widely known to the American people.

    Wow, it’s almost like we’ve consolidated too much power in the Executive Branch and should do something about it before a despotic asswipe gets elected by an unhinged, manipulated populace.

  • nicerdicer@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    60
    ·
    11 months ago

    No matter where an election is coming up - people tend to vote against their interests. This meme popped up in my head when I read this thread:

    • AnarchistsForDemocracy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Unless their interest are not obvious to you in so far as that they are voting to maintain a racist hierarchy and privilege that equates to tangible benefits.

      More than 50% of white american women voted for trump. Trump is a sexist, they know this. They also know that he will maintain their racist advantages over blacks, mexicans, jews, natives, asians you name it. So they voted for the ability to call the cops on you and have the police shoot you if they see you in their neighborhood.

      It is basically a cast system that they voted for. Just in this case the cast system is based on racism.

      Anybody knows a better explanation, please, feel free to reply and give your view what the benefits or expected pay-offs were for voting trump as a poor white woman.

      edit: i forgot to mention what the expected reward is: if blacks, gays, jews, mexicans, asians, natives are beaten into submission and constantly harassed, then they can’t compete with them for jobs as well, and their kids won’t be able to compete with their kids either, as they will be constantly harassed, bullied and even murdered by the police and other racists.

      • nicerdicer@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Regarding your edit: This might be the reason, why people tend to vote against their interests. To weed out competition. For instance, people would happily vote against free school lunch - even if the option of free school lunch would benefit them - just because some different ethnical and/or political group would not receive that benefit either.

        I see a very similar behavior in German politics right now: The right-wing party (AfD) is gaining popularity and the conservative party (CDU) is going to lose voters towards them. In order to appeal to voters they want to (very oversimplified) alter social welfare benefits to the worse and keep minimum wage from rising, all while claiming that immigration (among other things) is the issue. But those who are voting for the right wing party and the conservative party as well are the ones who clearly would benefit from better social welfare an a higher minimum wage. These people would rather decline any improvements regarding social welfare and minimum wage, so that others (immigrants for example) would not benefit from them either.

        Edit: typos

      • AquaTofana@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        More than 50% of white women voted for Trump? Do you have a source for this?!

        I’m genuinely asking here, because that’s gross as fuck if true. I’m a white woman. I couldn’t imagine voting for that POS, however, my mother is suuuuuuper into the “Bible” so I know she did. My parents are unfortunately super fans of his. I didn’t think that there were that many like her though.

        Edit: I was so appalled I looked myself. I did find a bunch of stuff supporting it like truthout andthe guardian, which is absolutely fucking infuriating to me.

        I did see that when it came to women with college, more did vote for Clinton than Trump, but it wasn’t enough to outweigh when combined with those who lacked a college education.

        FFS. This stat actually massively upsets me.

    • peopleproblems@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      11 months ago

      Wait until he hears about amatuer radio licensing, unlicensed spectrum, and experimental radio. It will blow his fucking mind.

      I bet he actually thinks that all data is transported by fortune 500 companies that will do as he says “or else.”

  • spider@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    45
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    If Trump elected, America has “turned off its brain”, I say

  • Drivebyhaiku@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    My thoughts and prayers have started ringing to the tune of "please gods may Trump have a heart attack / stroke at the worst possible time for the Republicans and spare the rest of the world another term of American foreign policy behaving as though it was conceived by racist, classist and eight kinds of phobic Elmer Fudd "

    • misterundercoat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      11 months ago

      Another term? If he gets in again, he ain’t leaving until he’s dead. It’s glaringly obvious that he plans to become a dictator like his friends Putin and Kim.

          • Drivebyhaiku@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            That’s why I hope it happens during the election and the ensuing chaos means they can’t consolidate around a candidate. Dems would just reshuffle if Biden bit it mid campaign because so many leftists vote Democrat because it’s the lesser of two evils but the Republicans eat their own.

            • pinkdrunkenelephants@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              🤔 I wonder what would happen if someone assassinated Trump right before the election. Neither you nor I would ever do that, but say someone did. What is the protocol?

              Or Biden, for that matter? Or say the Trumptards attacked enough polling places throughout the U.S. to seriously disrupt the election and possibly even completely fuck it up. Is there a legal protocol in place? Any election clerks in the house?

              • Drivebyhaiku@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                11 months ago

                Well assassination of a candidate duration an election has some precedent. But it doesn’t happen often for good reason. If you assassinate a political figure you make them essentially a martyr for their campaign or ideals which stops people thinking rationally and doubling down on their emotional reaction to the assassinee’s party or general ideology. People put aside differences to “carry the torch”.

                Honestly killing Trump and pining it on leftist bogeymen would be a move I could see some Republicans doing. They have basically primed their base to accept any shlock they want to pass as news and if they go full authoritarian and get enough support on board to basically ignore democratic checks and balances…

                • pinkdrunkenelephants@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  I really, really think it greatly behooves western states to try to secede from the U.S. next year.

                  Like the right wing is completely intractable at this point and compromising with them will only bring suffering so it would benefit the left if California, Oregon, Washington simply left and formed their own country. They have big enough economies where they could do it and survive on their own.

    • SPRUNT@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      11 months ago

      If thoughts and prayers actually worked, Donald Trump’s head would have exploded like a scene from “Scanners” on one of his countless TV appearances.

    • Telorand@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      11 months ago

      If the Internet goes off, it means most of the US will be pissed off at him. Cellphones would be basically useless.

      His followers wouldn’t be able to access their favorite propaganda and conspiracy theories, either, so maybe they’d sober up a bit. Either way, it would not be good for him.

      • xantoxis@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        I mean, he can’t. Even if he claims to have the executive power, even if he found a bunch of lackeys willing to try to do it for him, he can’t do it. Whatever he did would be unenforceable. You can’t just turn off the Internet. That’s literally the reason we invented it in the first place, it’s a communication network resilient against nuclear strikes and war and bad-faith governance all at once.

        He could probably make it very hard to use, given a lot of time, but he’d be eaten alive by the angry populace long before it ever reached that point.

        • Max@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          11 months ago

          How many internet service providers would have to go along before the internet was effectively off? 3? 4?

          • MrShankles@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            11 months ago

            You wouldn’t need an ISP to have servers communicate, if push comes to shove. So maybe “effectively off” as we know it, but damn near impossible to stop communication if people need it

          • xantoxis@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            11 months ago

            I mean, off for whom? There’s people who think facebook IS the internet and will be forced to go outside if they can’t read their racist memes today. For critical comms, you’d have to shut off way more than 3 or 4 big companies to make a dent. For sensitive, high-bandwidth applications that involve a lot of people being online at once, you would need to hit fewer before the damage is noticeable.

            • Max@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              11 months ago

              I agree that the internet is far more than facebook. But if you’re blocked at the edge of the network by your ISP, there’s really not much you can do. You’ll have access to nothing, Facebook or otherwise. Not even something low bandwidth.

              If At&t, Comcast, Charter, Verizon, and T-Mobile suddenly stopped providing service to all their customers, then essentially no-one would be able to use anything on the internet at all. Even if the backbone itself (which I believe is largely owned by those same companies, but not sure) and some large datacenters that are their own isps were able to keep talking to each other, anything business or user facing would stop.

              Some people who run their own mesh networks might be able to stay in contact (and people would try and start some local ones as this disaster unfolds), but that’s so few people.

              • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                But we still haven’t established why. It makes no sense that companies that only make money providing a service would stop providing the service. I wouldn’t even be able to pay my ISP because that happens over the Internet.

                • Max@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  I was assuming this was the government ordering the companies to. They have no incentive to do so on their own. But I believe there was a bill (which thankfully didn’t pass) that would have given the president the power to essentially order the internet turned off.

      • DragonTypeWyvern
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Yes.

        The first time they lost because liberals actively embargoed them while selling guns and oil under the table to the fascists.

  • ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    11 months ago

    The internet has gone to shit. Let’s hear him out. Speaking as a web developer who just sat through a wireframe meeting, I’m not completely averse to the internet disappearing.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    11 months ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    Donald Trump may turn off the internet if elected to a second term in the White House, a former staffer has warned.

    Miles Taylor, Trump’s former chief of staff at the Department of Homeland Security, was asked on MSNBC about what potential damage the former president, who is the frontrunner in the GOP primaries, could do in government without breaking the law.

    I think Americans still don’t understand the full extent of the president’s powers and things Donald Trump could do, bubble-wrapped in legalese, that would be damaging to the republic."

    “He could invoke powers we’ve never heard a President of the United States invoke—potentially to shut down companies or turn off the internet or deploy the U.S. military on U.S. soil,” he added.

    In a Republican debate later that month, Trump said he was “open to closing areas” of the internet to prevent terrorism.

    Removing internet service in certain areas of the U.S. would require multiple companies to turn off their cell towers and fiber networks, and to restrict satellite access to people living in those regions.


    The original article contains 636 words, the summary contains 178 words. Saved 72%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

    • nutsack@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      many countries have them. they are used to orchestrate media blackouts.

      • TootSweet@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Back when that bill I linked was introduced, the generally-accepted narriative was that “sure most governments can shut off the internet to their own countries, but the U.S. can shut off the internet for the whole world.” So, yes, other countries have internet kill switches, but if that’s (still) true, probably no country can more drastically hobble the worldwide internet as a whole.

        The root DNS servers are in the U.S… The first internet backbone is in the U.S… In 2010, it seemed like the U.S. government did have the power to make virtually the entire internet grind to a rapid halt.

        IIRC there was also language in the bill saying all kinds of bullshit things about how since the internet was started in the U.S. by a U.S. government agency, the U.S. “owned” the internet and thus… had every right to shut off the internet if they so chose or some shit.

        Since I first saw your comment, I did a little googling. Not a ton, and the sources I’ve found so far aren’t all that reliable. But mostly the answers I’ve found say that the U.S.’ ability to shut down the internet to other parts of the world is more limited than I’d heard it was in 2010. I’m not sure if it was overstated back then or if things have changed since then (or if the sources I found are wrong and the U.S. government could pretty much destroy the whole internet if it chose to.) But hopefully it’s true that the U.S. doesn’t have that kind of power.

          • xantoxis@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            And you don’t even need them, for the short term. Virtually all of your DNS queries are answered by machines much closer to you than the root servers. If you don’t have it in a local DNS cache, you go to the authoritative nameserver for the domain you’re requesting, which is also not a root DNS server, but one of the millions of other zone nameservers. Shutting down the root servers can also be routed around by setting up a different configuration, or just routing the addresses for the roots to something else that you control.

            Then you get to the backbones, which are a bigger deal. Shut a few of those down–maybe with the enforcement help of local cops and the FBI, assuming you can get them on board–and you’ll slow traffic to a crawl. No Netflix for most folks, not for a while. But communication itself would still find a way around.

            And all of that assumes he can even get anyone to agree to this, and he’s probably the only person with any power who’s stupid enough to think this is a good idea. It just doesn’t work, not on any level, not even if he takes office, still thinks this is a good idea (which he doesn’t, this is an obvious bluff), and can find a bunch of idiots in power willing to help.

        • kungen@feddit.nu
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          The root DNS servers are in the U.S.

          Originally, sure, but now of days its anycasted. And should we lose root servers, it’d be chaos for a while, but we’d survive.

        • nutsack@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          i didn’t say it was a good thing. i think “media blackouts” is obviously negative enough.

    • CitizenKong@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      I mean he wanted to attack a hurricane with nukes likely because he saw it in Sharknado, so not that unlikely.