Comment: I don't know that...

(See in situ)


I don't know that...

...they don't. I also don't know of any subsidies, which is why I said "maybe even subsidies". I was just sayin' that it wouldn't take subsidies, because the free-market could (and did for the most part, subsidies or not) create the low-cost, high-end technology as long as the gubment didn't regulate the industry much, which they haven't ... relatively.

I can't really argue with any of what you posted. My post is just based on what I know and have seen and how I've connected the dots we see. I agree that they still control it or, at least, have the ability to wreak havoc. When I said "released it to the public" [paraphrasing], I just meant "let us use it, too".

But, whether it's subsidized and still under their control or not, my theory doesn't change, because the theory's based on the fact that it's relatively unregulated, which led to rapid dissemination and that essentially allowed TPTB to watch our every move and create in-depth psychological profiles on most of us.

I do know that Google and probably Facebook were CIA-backed and that Windows has backdoors. I was mainly talking about the hardware and infrastructure ... the chips, machines and wires/lines, not any particular site or piece of software. They could do a pretty good job using only hardware (hiding stuff in hardware's built-in memory and driver software) and even more with a friendly OS, which they had from the beginning in Microsoft's Windoze, which had a near monopoly until fairly recently.

Work for pay, pay for freedom
Fuck 'em all, we don't need 'em