>Following public concern
Strange, I don't recall being asked my opinion...
160 posts • joined 21 Sep 2007
Guideline number 7 seems a bit off. There are plenty of people who are paid to act on behalf of many organisations, in order to promote their goods, services, or act as online reputation managers. Not quite sure why it would be that this is something which is not permitted to be said.
All that guideline number 11 needs is "and no Daily Mail readers" added to it, and it could be out of any sixth form college debating guide.
why the police think that the normal course of law does not apply to them?
If they have information that a site is being used for crime, then go to court, and get an order to close it.
If they're not going to do that, we simply have a police state where the police censor information they don't approve of.
"The identification, exposure, or termination of employment of or legal actions against current or former insiders, leakers, or whistleblowers could damage or destroy this center of gravity and deter others from using Wikileaks.org to make such information public."
I'm sure this is all just a big coincidence.
The idea of running around record shops and independent retailers attempting to get them to sell your 'zine is totally unworkable ...
If it's popular, people will buy it.
I'm a regular on WoS. Why does such a site still exist? Because, even though there's no money left in it, people still want to talk about it.
Get your message prepared, and people will listen to it.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019