Tag: Internet

The Battle for the Internet

So, this happened:

Russia has taken another major step toward restricting its once freewheeling Internet, as President Vladimir V. Putin quietly signed a new law requiring popular online voices to register with the government, a measure that lawyers, Internet pioneers and political activists said Tuesday would give the government a much wider ability to track who said what online.

Mr. Putin’s action on Monday, just weeks after he disparaged the Internet as “a special C.I.A. project,” borrowed a page from the restrictive Internet playbooks of many governments around the world that have been steadily smothering online freedoms they once tolerated.

The idea that the Internet was at best controlled anarchy and beyond any one nation’s control is fading globally amid determined attempts by more and more governments to tame the web. If innovations like Twitter were hailed as recently as the Arab uprisings as the new public square, governments like those in China, Pakistan, Turkey, Iran and now Russia are making it clear that they can deploy their tanks on virtual squares, too.

Governments have long hated the internet. If they had their way, as Maggie McNeill said yesterday, it would be a “gigantic, sanitized government-patrolled shopping mall for those who can afford full-time legal departments to sort out rules on content.” Political dissent would be stifled, blasphemy would be stomped down, any illegal or semi-legal activity would be crushed. And it would all be done in the name of peace, order, stability, the War on Drugs and/or fighting terrorism.

Or maybe revenge porn. Just in case you think the United States is immune from this, check out Scott Greenfield on federal efforts to fight “revenge porn”. At the heart of these efforts is a move to destroy Section 230 of the CDA. This is the law that protects online hosts from being held legally responsible for things posted on their blogs, comment boards and social media:

While the issues raised by state laws are bad enough, this federal law elevates the problem to a level that may well fundamentally alter the nature of the internet. Conceptually, the point is that third-party hosts, ranging from Google to Twitter to blogs and everything in between, which now enjoy the safe harbor of Section 230, would become criminally liable for what is uploaded by others.

Other than commercial porn websites, this creates a massive incentive for hosts to censor the internet of all provocative images. After all, how would Google know if the person in an image consents to its display? Why would Google want to risk its own criminal culpability so some yahoo in Iowa can post a nude picture? Google loves you, but not enough to go to prison for you.

I strongly suggest you read the whole thing because the sponsors and advocates of the federal bill are trying very hard to muddy the waters here, calling bloggers like Greenfield “perverts” for their efforts to combat a law that could cripple internet commentary.

A federal law means that all websites, all services, all apps, every third-party host, not just a “revenge porn site claiming to merely provide a platform for angry exes,” will be required to censor or suffer prosecution. [Law Professor Mary Anne Franks] left that part out. Oops.

This isn’t about a takedown regime, like a DMCA notice, with ensuing damages, but criminalizing content. It’s scorched earth for images, but by wrapping it up in the rhetoric of revenge porn, non-lawyers fail to recognize that it applies to everyone. This won’t escape notice by Google, Facebook and Twitter, who aren’t in the business of defending the First Amendment rights of their users at the risk of their own criminal liability.

So the emotional appeal, the intellectual dishonesty, the facile anecdotes and the vilification of anyone who disagrees will persist in the hopes that politicians will see this as the new “get tough” mechanism to appeal to the masses. When the smoke clears, it may well mean the end of revenge porn (unless it offshores), but it may also mean the end of the safe harbor that protects the full panoply of content protected by the First Amendment on the internet.

Meet the future, Cleansed, sanitized and wonderful. I expect to be Godwinized any moment now. But somebody has to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous women.

Does anyone .. does anyone … doubt that once cracks are made in Section 230, the rest of the federal police state will start jamming chisels into those cracks? Oh, there will be good reasons behind it: the War on Drugs, the War on Terror, the War on Sex Trafficking. But the effect will be the same: slowly sanitizing the internet of content that anyone finds offensive. Because once we give government a power, it will use that power to advance whatever agenda it can get away with.

This particular subject of revenge porn is thorny. Because of the nature of the internet, someone can easily post a naked picture of an ex anywhere. The victim may not know of it until long after it has spread to other websites. It’s difficult at best to track down the perpetrator. I remember Alyssa Milano in particular tried to fight this battle years ago over nude pictures from one of her movies and eventually just gave up. I’m not sure how this problem can be dealt with. My off-the-top-of-my-head suggestion would be to create federal law that responds to complaints from victims and goes after the perpetrator (not the hosts) for civil damages while using DMCA-esque takedown notices to remove it from hosts. Smarter people can probably come up with a better idea.

I do know that eviscerating Section 230 with criminal sanctions for hosted content is not the way to deal with this. That’s simply using revenge porn as an excuse to attack a section of law that our government and every Nanny in the country despises.

Suit up, friends. The fight for out internet freedom didn’t end with SOPA/PIPA. It only started. And it will never end as long as there are government and rulers who seek tyranny over the mind of man.

Slurping up the Googles

We take a break from our regularly scheduled nap to tell you that there is absolutely nothing to worry about with Edward Snowden’s newest revelation: that the NSA is tapping into Google and Yahoo data centers:

The National Security Agency has secretly broken into the main communications links that connect Yahoo and Google data centers around the world, according to documents obtained from former NSA contractor Edward Snowden and interviews with knowledgeable officials.

By tapping those links, the agency has positioned itself to collect at will from hundreds of millions of user accounts, many of them belonging to Americans. The NSA does not keep everything it collects, but it keeps a lot.

According to a top-secret accounting dated Jan. 9, 2013, the NSA’s acquisitions directorate sends millions of records every day from Yahoo and Google internal networks to data warehouses at the agency’s headquarters at Fort Meade, Md. In the preceding 30 days, the report said, field collectors had processed and sent back 181,280,466 new records — including “metadata,” which would indicate who sent or received e-mails and when, as well as content such as text, audio and video.

The NSA’s principal tool to exploit the data links is a project called MUSCULAR, operated jointly with the agency’s British counterpart, the Government Communications Headquarters . From undisclosed interception points, the NSA and the GCHQ are copying entire data flows across fiber-optic cables that carry information between the data centers of the Silicon Valley giants.

The infiltration is especially striking because the NSA, under a separate program known as PRISM, has front-door access to Google and Yahoo user accounts through a court-approved process.

Now never mind that when PRISM was revealed, the NSA defenders told us that this was nothing to worry about, that it “proved” that NSA wasn’t tapping directly into the data streams but using court-approved secure data rooms to snoop (as if that were any better). Never mind that Greenwald and Snowden have let the NSA defenders get hoist by their own petard again by letting them spin and spin and lie and lie only to revealed to completely full of crap. Never mind, as Allahpundit notes, that the court had previously rebuked the NSA for similar data-gathering methods. No, no, no, it’s all OK. I’m sure they’re not digging up information on us. I’m sure it’s stopped a terrorist attack at some point.

What? Quit giving me those looks. We can trust these people. Even when they’ve been revealed to be completely lying their asses off. Don’t you care about terrorism?

Cameron’s Firewall

British Prime Minister David Cameron is proposing a new firewall on British ISP’s. In addition to blocking material like violent pornography, it will included an “opt in” option for any pornography. If you’re wondering how long it will be before the list of people who “opt in” to porn gets leaked to embarrass them, it will probably be measurable in femtoseconds.

Even on its own terms, Cameron’s Great Firewall is objectionable. As EFF points out, there is little reason to believe it will stop people looking for illegal content who are web savvy. It is likely that a host of website and search terms will get “accidentally” swept up in the net. And it puts the tools in place for much more abusive censorship (put a pin in that for a moment).

Moreover, there is almost no evidence that internet pornography is “corroding childhood” or provoking violence. There is no evidence that even violent porn does this. In fact, as pornography has exploded over the last twenty years, every social trend has been positive. Rape and sexual assault are way down; divorce is down, domestic violence is down, abortion is down, even teen pregnancy is way way down. It has fallen faster in states with more web access. Even the most extreme porn shows no connection to any real world harm.

(I’ve previously blogged, in the context of movie violence, about why I think violent entertainment can reduce real-world violence.)

So why is Cameron pushing for something that will put women and children in greater danger in the UK? Why is he suddenly …


The British prime minister’s internet filters will be about more than just hardcore pornography, according to information obtained by the Open Rights Group.

The organisation, which campaigns for digital freedoms, has spoken to some of the Internet Service Providers that will be constructing Cameron’s content filters. They discovered that a host of other categories of supposedly-objectionable material may be on the block-list.

As well as pornography, users may automatically be opted in to blocks on “violent material”, “extremist related content”, “anorexia and eating disorder websites” and “suicide related websites”, “alcohol” and “smoking”. But the list doesn’t stop there. It even extends to blocking “web forums” and “esoteric material”, whatever that is. “Web blocking circumvention tools” is also included, of course.

Needless to say, there is little justification for any of this. People don’t commit suicide because they read about it on a website. People don’t develop eating disorders because they read about it. People smoked and drank alcohol and beat the snot out of each other long before Algore was even born, least of all before he invented the internet. Blocking all this stuff and effectively imposing an ASBO on the entire nation is not going to make Britain any safer. It’s just going to put the British government’s claws into the information superhighway so that they can control content and, with it, people.

I have no problem with internet filters being available to people who want them. I’m a dad and there’s content I don’t Sal 11000 Beta to see, at least until she’s figured out my router password. But an automatic opt-in dictated by government is simply unacceptable. And don’t think for a moment that our own SOPA-supporting, CDA-befuddled politicians aren’t casting an eye across the pond to see how much freedom Cameron’s firewall can take away.

(H/T: Dr. Brooke Magnanti.)

The Bomb Drops

It looks like yesterday’s Verizon story was, as many suspected, the tip of the iceberg:

The National Security Agency and the FBI are tapping directly into the central servers of nine leading U.S. Internet companies, extracting audio, video, photographs, e-mails, documents and connection logs that enable analysts to track a person’s movements and contacts over time.

The highly classified program, code-named PRISM, has not been disclosed publicly before. Its establishment in 2007 and six years of exponential growth took place beneath the surface of a roiling debate over the boundaries of surveillance and privacy. Even late last year, when critics of the foreign intelligence statute argued for changes, the only members of Congress who know about PRISM were bound by oaths of office to hold their tongues. …

The technology companies, which participate knowingly in PRISM operations, include most of the dominant global players of Silicon Valley. They are listed on a roster that bears their logos in order of entry into the program: “Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube, Apple.” PalTalk, although much smaller, has hosted significant traffic during the Arab Spring and in the ongoing Syrian civil war.

I have to put Sal 11000 Beta to bed so I commend you over to Hot Air’s coverage, which is extensive and troubling. This has been building up for over a decade and will culminate, this fall, in the construction of a facility that will basically store all internet communications.

Hope you like Big Brother. ‘Cuz we’re living it now.

Update: A few more thoughts. The story is still in breaking stages. Some government sources are claiming they are not, in fact, data mining. We’ll see what comes out. But let’s proceed with the idea that these reports are accurate — that meta-data on all communications is being stored and that actual data from computer communications is being monitored.

First, I think we need to appreciate just how deep the rabbit hole goes here. Consider that, earlier this week, the Supreme Court gave authorities permission to, upon any arrest, take your DNA and run it against a database of crimes. If the government really is storing all your internet communications (the technical challenges boggle the mind) then, upon arrest, they can search your internet record — which currently has no warrant protection — for anything. Did you send a nudie picture to someone when you were 15? Did you have an IRC where you talking about getting high? Did you get a pop-up window with cartoon porn in it? That’s all in play now.

Second, this thing has been created by both parties. It started in 2007 under George Bush and is reaching its apotheosis under Barack Obama. Neither party has seriously opposed any provision of the Patriot Act or supported any privacy protections. We are being double-teamed here, people.

Third, the usual suspects are emerging to claim that these programs are necessary and have probably already saved us from terrorism. I am highly dubious of this. We have seen this kind of thing before when Osama bin Laden was killed. Everyone who supported a questionable or illegal program claimed it played a key role. But moreover, is this a price we are willing to pay? To have all of our communications monitored? Are we willing to live Big Brother because somehow, somewhere, someone might set off a bomb? If you think it is worth it, please do not ever ever quote Benjamin Franklin on the subject of security and liberty.

Goose Gander Watch

I find myself amused. When I first saw this, I was sure it was from the Onion.

The Congress-focused research organization LegiStorm set off a firestorm on Capitol Hill this week as some staffers learned that their personal Twitter accounts would appear on the site.

LegiStorm on Wednesday publicized the tool StormFeed, a “real-time, full-text searchable access to every official press release and official tweet from Capitol Hill plus the tweets of thousands of congressional staffers,” according to a release. It’s a page available for members of the subscription service LegiStorm Pro.

As staffers learned about StormFeed, some discovered other detailed, personal information listed on the site.

“Many are finding inaccurate information in their profiles, despite [Legistorm’s] promise that info provided is ‘confirmed,’” one House Republican staffer told POLITICO in an email on Friday. “I was pretty surprised to show that they even listed who I married, when I married him and where. Why in the world does that need to be in there?”

Welcome to the fucking club, guys. We, the citizens, are subject to our government collecting all kinds of information about us. We, the citizens, are told that government can monitor our cell phones, roll drug-sniffing dogs up and see our e-mail patterns without a warrant. We, the citizens, will be subject to the new SOPA bills you guys are quietly crafting. We, the citizens, are subject to an ever-expanding list of federal crimes we can commit with knowing it. But someone wants to publish your public records and suddenly it’s a violation?

You may think that Congressional staffers are innocent bystandards in the war on our privacy. You would think wrong. Staffers are usually very involved in the legislative process. They often read the bills that Congressmen don’t. They are a party to ever civil liberties violations that has come down the pipe in the last ten years. And now they’re miffed because someone is looking at their God damned Twitter feed?

Give me a break.

Chipping Away

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: it is a rare politician who truly respects civil liberties. Many of them would burn the Bill of Rights in a second if they could. And in places of the world not covered by our Bill of Rights, the powers that be are eternally grateful that they are under no constraints. Almost all parties and philosophies agree on this: you, the citizen, can not be trusted.

Three stories to illustrate this popped up in my feed over the weekend.

First, Senator Leahy –one of the few exceptions to the general rule — has proposed the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the Video Privacy Protection Act. This would establish, once and for all, that law enforcement can not read your e-mail without a warrant. Most law enforcement agencies have interpreted the old ECPA, which predates e-mail, to not protect it. They often use the excuse that because your mail is stored on someone else’s server, they aren’t really rooting around in your papers.

As you can imagine, some people don’t like this:

But, of course, law enforcement freaked out and it appears that Leahy has backed down, delaying hearings on the bill for now (funny how he really wanted to push through PIPA despite massive public protests, but a few law enforcement people get upset about respecting the 4th Amendment and things get delayed). From Declan McCullagh’s coverage:

The delay comes two days after a phalanx of law enforcement organizations objected to the legislation, asking Leahy to “reconsider acting” on it “until a more comprehensive review of its impact on law enforcement investigations is conducted.” The groups included the National District Attorneys’ Association and the National Sheriffs’ Association.

[….] A person participating in Capitol Hill meetings on this topic told CNET that Justice Department officials have been expressing their displeasure about requiring search warrants. The department is on record as opposing such a requirement: James Baker, the associate deputy attorney general, has publicly warned that requiring a warrant to obtain stored e-mail could have an “adverse impact” on criminal investigations.

Of course it would have “adverse impact” on criminal investigations. So do lots of things — but those are the rules law enforcement plays by in a free society. It’s not built to make law enforcement’s life easy.

Our civil liberties are not conditional on their being convenient to law enforcement. They are intrinsic to us as human beings; given to us by God, if you’re a religious person. Just last week, we saw that Barack Obama — the liberal Law Review Defender of the Little Guy — has tripled warrantless surveillance. And we’re supposed to wait until his ilk have their say before our e-mails our given even the thin protection of a warrant requirement (electronic warrants are rarely refused).

Oh, it gets better. Techdirt again on a former Register of Copyrights:

One of the reasons why we live in such an innovative society is that we’ve (for the most part) enabled a permissionless innovation society — one in which innovators no longer have to go through gatekeepers in order to bring innovation to market. This is a hugely valuable thing, and it’s why we get concerned about laws that further extend permission culture. However, according to the former Register of Copyrights, Ralph Oman, under copyright law, any new technology should have to apply to Congress for approval and a review to make sure they don’t upset the apple cart of copyright, before they’re allowed to exist. I’m not joking. Mr. Oman, who was the Register of Copyright from 1985 to 1993 and was heavily involved in a variety of copyright issues, has filed an amicus brief in the Aereo case (pdf).

Aero, in case you didn’t know, uses antennas to capture over-the-air broadcasts and then streams them to devices. The TV networks are suing, claiming this violates their copyright (cable companies have to pay them fees for over-the-air signals). I’m not entirely sure that the television companies are wrong here. I think it’s likely that they have the law on their side.

But … the idea that technology should have to be pre-cleared is insane. It’s, frankly, a communist idea. I’m not engaging in hyperbole. When my dad was finishing the War College, I helped him research a paper on why the US has such a huge technical edge on the Soviet Union. A big reason, he thought, was their relentless controlling and politicizing of all technology, which crippled innovation in the name of politics. Science and innovation thrive on an open market of ideas. In this case, Oman wants to cripple technology so that monied interests won’t have their toes stepped on.

But, the thing is, we are lucky to live in the United States. Something like Leahy’s bill is likely to eventually pass (although possibly compromised). Oman is a marginal figure. There’s danger, yes. But we always have the option of getting involved and forcing our politicians to respect the Constitution.

Over in Europe, they have no such shield. A EU working group’s memos on keeping terrorism off the internet have been leaked. Check it out:

* “Knowingly providing hyperlinks on websites to terrorist content must be defined by law as illegal just like the terrorist content itself”

* “Governments must disseminate lists of illegal, terrorist websites”

* “The Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 (art 1.2) should be explained that providing Internet services is included in providing economics instruments to Al Qaeda (and other terrorist persons and organisations designated by the EU) and therefore an illegal act”

* “On Voice over IP services it must be possible to flag users for terrorist activity.”

That might not sound unreasonable to some (it does to me). But keep in mind that who, precisely, is defined as a terrorist organization is highly politicized. For example, our government just decided that Mujahedeen-E-Khalq will no longer be classified as a terrorist organization despite clearly being one. But because they oppose the Iranian regime and have flooded Washington with money and lobbying, we’re going to look the other way.

Yeah, no way that will bite us in the ass.

But see the larger picture. If the EU authorities decides, to use a dopey example, that the Tea Party is a terrorist organization, people could be punished for having an old hyperlink on their blog. This is SOPA applied to terrorism.

It gets worse:

* “Internet companies must allow only real, common names.”

* “Social media companies must allow only real pictures of users.”

Our governments are trying to do this, too, under the duck blind of “anti-bullying” legislation. The real reason is that they don’t like anonymous criticism; some have openly admitted this. I’m sure that criticizing local authorities under your own name will never result in any legal harassment or “three felonies a day” searching for some obscure law you’ve violated.

* “At the European level a browser or operating system based reporting button must be developed.”

* “Governments will start drafting legislation that will make offering… a system [to monitor Internet activity] to Internet users obligatory for browser or operating systems…as a condition of selling their products in this country or the European Union.”

Yes. Because no one could ever get another browser.

The counter-terrorism agency is mad … that their plans have been leaked. In fact, you’ll find that is often the case. The people who wish to destroy our freedom hate it when their real plans and ideas become known.

SOPA showed us that we are powerful when we want to be. But we must remain vigilant. We can not rest on our laurels while Congress, the EU or anyone is in session. Because the freedom-eaters never rest.

PIPA and SOPA Must Die

Congress seems poised to fuck up the internet, but good.

PROTECT IP Act Breaks The Internet from Fight for the Future on Vimeo.

Peter Suderman has a run-down of everything that’s included. The video above gets the basic gist. A site like ours could be harassed, denied advertisements or shut down if someone posts a link to a pirate site in a comment or if we embed a video that used unauthorized music. Hell, if they had their wish, we’d be in trouble if we quoted a movie without permission.

We have stood by while these entertainment industry goons get ever increasing power over our lives. But now they’re talking about being ensconced as the referees of the internet, vested with almost unlimited power. And our Congress is either so well-bought or so technically ignorant that they’re likely to give it to them. Ron Wyden, one of the few good guys, is fighting this tooth and nail. But he’s one man holding the hill against the platinum album horde.

They need to be told what they’re doing. And they need to be held accountable if they do it. Party doesn’t matter on this; freedom does.

Getting Explosure

A blog that I have plugged before here is IOTW, a smart, funny, topical blog that offers up content on a wide variety of issues, Oh, and Big Fur Hat (the main writer) is one funny dude. Today he highlighted a post written by Right Wing News lamenting the diminishing reach and influence of conservative blogs. He offered up a chance for readers who also write blogs to get some press and exposure, to offer up their own blog to the readers, maybe get more eyeballs. I wrote a comment showcasing this site with the hopes of extending our readership.

That was a few hours ago. I just revisited the site and they have cross posted one of Hal’s posts, good thing they included our own comments so I can get some rebuttal points.

It’s a good sign when other blogs are paying attention to what we are doing here, good job, Hal.

AOL-Huffington merger doomed as I had predicted.

Looks like my prediction that the purchase of Huffington Post by AOL for $315 million was going to kill both companies, a while back on this site, is bearing fruit. As I noted then, AOL was the kiss of death, and Huffington Post was a bunch of lefty loons with no real experience. Anyway, this thing is going south faster than Obama and the democrats are pushing America off the cliff, and the most essential reason is #1:

AOL bought Huffington Post for $315 million earlier this year. So far, according to a reader, the intergration is going very badly: Twelve reasons why the AOL – Huffington Post merger is going down in flames. The tragedy here is that not only will the deal ruin AOL, but it will also ruin the Huffington Post.

It is the Peter Principle on a grand scale. None of AOL’s senior editors (Huffington, Roy Sekoff, and Nico Pitney) have ever managed more than a few people. Now they have hundreds and lack the experience to manage a team this big. Behind the scenes, long time Huffposters say that Jai Singh’s departure has eliminated the key adult in the room. Now they need to grow HuffPost and save AOL – not possible.

The place is run by people with no real experience for the job they are in. Kind of like the country is being run right now. The novice in the WH and his merry band of followers that with a few exceptions have never held a job in the real world have no clue what they are doing. Neither does the leadership of the mighty AOL-Huffington Post mega corp. Even worse, it seems decisions are not being made on sound business principles, choices made to benefit the company as a hole, but what to me clearly look like insane reasons and some kind of twisted ideological lines and motive. Seriously, can you believe stuff like this?

Unclear lines of authority. Editors are turning down sponsorships – refusing to allow McDonald’s or K-Mart sponsor AOL’s fashion week coverage.

It’s not like the KKK or Hitler are asking for ad time here people. Why refuse good paying customers, huh?

Or even more interesting are revelations like these:

Dissension in edit. The editorial team is miserable and views Arianna as unpredictable and her leadership unsteady. Several editors are racing to close book deals to be write the “Devil Wear’s Prada” of the digital age. Others are aggressively pitching unflattering profiles to New York Magazine, Vanity Fair, and the LA Times. The lack of maturity and loyalty among editors is stunning – even those close to her are extremely negative behind her back – which is surprising because she has done a great job taking care of her people.

Imperial over-reach. AOL will eliminate Popeater and Parentdish this month and roll them into the Huffington Post. Arianna’s people are plotting to eliminate all non huffingtonpost.com websites and redirect all traffic to the huffingtonpost.com. No one thinks consolidating to huffingtonpost.com is a good idea from a consumer or an advertiser perspective, but no one will stop Arianna.

Neither the Indians nor the chiefs have a clue what they are doing, but both are doing things that hurt the future viability of the company, and then due to lack of maturity and for insane personal and ideological reasons. Good luck fixing those. And expect a lot more of this:

Fear and paranoia. Large parts of the org recognize the strategy is bad for the business but everyone is afraid to speak out. Arianna is rumored to have created an enemies list across the company and has directed her loyalists to collect dossiers on other managers across the company and report back on conversations. Her list includes several key business, sales, technology, and marketing executives she wants to eliminate and replace with her people. Anyone who disagrees, even if backed by data and clear rationale’s – goes on the enemies list. Facts don’t matter.

This sounds like leftists are in charge for sure. Facts, logic, and business principles – none of those matters a bit. There are enemy’s lists targeting sales, technology, marketing, which are being used to push personal agendas, and people live in fear of doing the right thing. Even more interesting is how this is impacting the front end:

Traffic is down. The integration is likely destroying the huffington post. The sales demands and content over-reach are destroying huffpost’s focus while the org is trapped trying to save AOL when the huffpost team should be focused on building huffpost. Traffic on huffpost is up – but only due to the redirects from aol sites…. Net net, aol plus huff post traffic is in decline and the situation is not improving.

Heh, can’t say I am surprised at the news that this venture seems doomed to failure: I expected that based on observation of previous such attempts and on what’s going on right now. We are seeing the same play out, at a macro level, in the way that things are turning out for our country and its economy since the lefties took over. Stories like this are not an accident when the people in charge of running things are only good at campaigning, but have no clue how to run things. People are figuring out they are being had.

Hang on AOL-Huffington Post, cause the country might beat you to the bankruptcy line the way things are going with the Campaigner-in-Chief and the democrats refusing to deal with the disaster they have created. Nah, I was only joking. I actually am rooting for the whole AOL-Huffington Post thing to go south. I thought the whole thing was about as insane as the whole Air America project from the start, and I hope it ends the same way. Let the good times roll!