One problem is the internet itself. Newspapers used to be a complete product that was consumed entirely. Now we can click single articles. This produces two problems. One is that we click our own filterbubble and the other is the promotion of entertaining and easy reading articles. When I last used the BBC Android app in 2014, there were many article about political issues. When I tried it in 2016, it was all blood, crime, cute animals and other entertaining, but irrelevant stuff. The stuff people click on. So it gets promoted. And the people that write them get promoted. This seems to have a profound effect, even on the BBC.

The Fox News propaganda machine and garbage papers like The Sun in the UK misinformed readers with their intentional bias long before the internet.

Added explanation: There is news that is entertaining but irrelevant to us, because it doesn't effect us. Like crimes or celebrity news or other 'interesting facts'. Then there are political issues that effect us, like laws and deliberation of laws. Those are also news. A newspaper has a mix of both. The internet seems to promote the former in all media.

One of the advantages of Trump's many, many horrible scandals seems to be that people have a hard time keeping track.

Trump's deputy campaign manager (and high on the list for Chief of Staff) is David Bossie, the former president of Citizen United, the organization that won the infamous SCOTUS decision that allowed SuperPACs and created politics as it is today, with virtually unlimited money flowing into politics. Something we would call "Swamp". Basically Trump railed against the 'swamp', while hiring the guy that is mostly responsible for growing it tenfold over the last couple years.

Looking at the rest of Trump's team it is safe to say that big industry and monopolies probably never had a friendlier POTUS. I am willing to bet he will give more presents to large corporations, billionaires and big banks in his first year than George W Bush did in eight.

"Wild card" was a campaign slogan.

I watched Starship Troopers when it came out in the movie theater and had no expectations at all. And I loved it. It was a fun action movie and, at the same time, a fun satire of fascism. And the fact that I enjoyed it harmlessly until the last couple scenes (where it became obvious to me) managed to show me how much I enjoy fascism. Which is an important lesson, IMHO. Especially considering how enjoyable and thus rating friendly Trump currently is. The stuff is awesome.

Lawsuits as a business. The last time I heard about that, I saw it in this video on software patents:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

If you haven't seen it, you should, because it could very well be about you. And this startup may make this even more likely to be the case.

There are countless stories of bullying in high school and its devastating effects here on Slashdot every week. Yet here we have a bully in a social setting being defended, because he may have not clearly broken any laws or it may be impossible to prove his most devastating actions in a criminal trial.

So all is fine and his "victims" should just suck it up? He should be heralded, because he is a football hero, er, "leader"?

Applebaum was not let go over false rape charges, but over a long history of abuse of multiple people. Rape may or may have been part of his conduct.

I followed the story and read the accounts of the accusers back when the news broke. The modus operandi (sending acolytes to pressure someone) is exactly what Applebaum did.

The major point of the accusers wasn't that Applebaum raped someone. The major thing was that he was being such a giant asshole to some (many) individuals, bullying and pressuring them, that it crossed into abuse. And he mostly did that in front of witnesses. So people knew. All the website did was assemble a list and also show that those that were abused suffered a lot as a result.

It mainly served to wake up the people that witnessed a lot of the abuse (those working with him in Berlin) and force them into action.

If you knew anything about abuse, then you know very well that there is a huge grey area inside relationships (both as friends, partners and families) that do not fit neatly into the criminal law, but that could still greatly hurt the victims of such abuse.

The issue is not with unfounded accusations. The people that worked with Applebaum over the years found the accusations very plausible, because of the conduct he has shown to the rest of the board members. They know why they finally got rid of him.

This story isn't about some accusations that came out of the blue, but about an organization finally pulling the plug on a really mean character that has used his social skills and status for over a decade to abuse countless people.

My problem is: Why haven't they done so sooner. If you read the accounts, you really have to wonder how toxic the organizations (TOR, CCC, cDc, et al) were that hosted this gigantic psychopath for so long. And if you look at his bio (Wikipedia), his psychological problems aren't a big surprise.

So why has this been going on for so long, and how many other (smarter) abusers still hide in these communities? There is a lot of abuse that can't be adequately addressed by criminal law, but still warrants dealing with and the TOR project has not shown any interest in finding out how to deal with these issues in the future. Neither have cDc or the CCC.

Actually no. This is not how democracy is supposed to work. Democracy is not supposed to be a tool for any majority to completely dominate minorities. Minority rights, compromise and balance are very important. Which is why direct democracy is frowned upon and is actually really bad for a population of more than a couple hundred people.

AFAIK the current UK government has a majority in parliament, even though they only received a popular vote of 37% with 66% of people voting.

The software is open source. The client offers client side encryption. Thus you don't have to trust them at all. You can simply turn on encryption and check the source if said encryption is secure enough for your needs.

Why was this voted "informative"? This comment is meant sarcastic, if you only read the article.

Seafile offers software that allows you to operate a private service akin to Dropbox. They are open source, so they have source packages as well as precompiled versions of their server and client for download. Their business model consists of offering a version of their software with additional features that costs money. They also offer paid support.

The German company by a similar name (Seafile GmbH in Germany vs. Seafile Ltd. out of China) started offering space on Seafile servers operated by themselves last year.

Spying on their users is not only impractical, since the client offers encryption, but also illegal in Germany, where the servers are located.

Like Dopbox, Google Drive and similar services, Seafile offers file sharing via a web link, of course, which makes illegal file sharing possible, but also pretty dumb, since German law has legal options to force Seafile to divulge the identity (only paying customers, remember?) of someone providing a link to a file on the server space they rented, if the file contents are illegal in some way.

So why the "Informative" tag on something so entirely misleading?

That is the thing I don't get. People are tired of politicians f"Â%$ing them, so they vote for someone who is going to f"Â% them so much worse.

How logical is that?

Trump is very much part of the establishment. So who would sabotage him? And who would shoot him that wouldn't have shot Obama already?

"change" is used, because it sells. People are very unsatisfied with Washington, which is why "change" sells very well. Any change. News Media sells itself using shocking or bad news, which is why a lot of people think their country is on the worst possible course. Which is wrong. It could be a lot worse. It could also be better, but if you want change, you should want change for the better, not any change, because there is a lot of money in politics that will influence any change their way. Trump is taking a lot of that money, despite saying he wouldn't.

The current estimate for total campaign spending 2016 is at about 7 billion dollars.

Your post is a narrative. Nothing more, nothing less. Obama also had a narrative very similar. He even made it his campaign slogan. "Change we can believe in." Did he change much? Did he try changing much? Was he successful? Hillary more or less shares a lot of political positions with Obama. Maybe she will be more successful? Who knows?

You can also change a lot of things for the worse. Why anyone would believe anything Trump says is beyond me. Trump university may be a good example of what a character Trump is. He basically scammed poor people with his big name, doing the exact opposite of what he promised. Why should President Trump be any different than what Donald Trump has been all his life? A rich kid that stays rich.

Trump said some stuff about Super PACs that was interesting. Now he promised to raise a billion dollars (donor money, guess from whom) for the RNC. He is already doing the very same thing Hillary does.

If Trump can implement any changes, which is doubtful, those would most likely not benefit unemployed or underemployed people. Anyone that believes different is very naive. Just like Sanders supporters in 2016 or Obama supporters in 2008. A president does not have all that much influence. Sanders himself said as much. He said that it matters if people talk about the issues he raises. At least that puts some of that stuff on the agenda. But that's about it.

Trumps policies will most likely benefit people like him, because he is an extreme narcissist. Everything he says and does point towards that.

So if you are rich and in real estate, you should vote for Trump. If you are none of the above, Trump won't be good for you.

Asia has a different culture. Different prudency. It's a much bigger deal over there than it is over here.

Which is, btw. why the CIA torture methods used in Abu Ghraib weren't recognized as such. They finly tuned their methods to the local culture, which is a lot more prudent than Western culture. Taking pictures of the naked men piled up may have been worse than amputations for them. Needless to say, this is further prove that the torture wasn't some lower guard guy's idea. There was no justice.