Trump is Trying to Shut Down the Internet

Page 6 of 7 [ 98 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

DarthMetaKnight
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,105
Location: The Infodome

18 Sep 2017, 4:43 pm

cyberdad wrote:
Huff post and the Guardian are a good read as they tend to stick it up Washington and London


HuffPo sometimes makes good content.

Unfortunately, they are left-wing extremists. I don't like to throw the term "left-wing extremism" around because it's not really a big deal. Left-wing extremism isn't very dangerous or deadly. It's mostly just hilarious ... but it still exists.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Huffington_Post

I swear, some of the articles on HuffPo were written by escaped mental patients. It's kinda like Buzzfeed ... but slightly less stupid.


_________________
Synthetic carbo-polymers got em through man. They got em through mouse. They got through, and we're gonna get out.
-Roostre

READ THIS -> https://represent.us/


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,149

18 Sep 2017, 4:50 pm

DarthMetaKnight wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Huff post and the Guardian are a good read as they tend to stick it up Washington and London


HuffPo sometimes makes good content.

Unfortunately, they are left-wing extremists. I don't like to throw the term "left-wing extremism" around because it's not really a big deal. Left-wing extremism isn't very dangerous or deadly. It's mostly just hilarious ... but it still exists.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Huffington_Post

I swear, some of the articles on HuffPo were written by escaped mental patients. It's kinda like Buzzfeed ... but slightly less stupid.

I tend to "triangulate" different sources and make up my own mind. Certainly better than "others" on this thread (or in Trump's inner circle) who wait with "bated breath" for whatever Fox news or Brietbart publish.

A cursory google search suggests AP or Reuters aren't much better than any other news source
https://www.infowars.com/how-reliable-is-reuters/

Comes back to the question...if Trump and his fawning sycophants label sources "fake news" then what is reliable news for them??



CockneyRebel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jul 2004
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,298
Location: Stalag 13

18 Sep 2017, 5:01 pm

The Internet is here to stay, whether Trump likes it or not.


_________________
Who wants to adopt a Sweet Pea?


Chronos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Apr 2010
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,698

18 Sep 2017, 6:17 pm

SH90 wrote:
I always felt this chart is fairly accurate on where news stations stand...

Image



I do miss the days when news was bland, boring, serious, and unbiased. When CNN first started, it attempted to brand itself as "vanilla news", meaning, what I described above, but unfortunately it's largely tabloid fodder these days.

One of the reasons for the degradation in the quality of news is that previously, news corporations had consistent funding from sponsors and customers. Businesses would pay large sums of money for air time to air commercials on news programs, and new papers received funds from actual paper sales.

These days, with the decline in TV watchers, and a significant decline in news paper subscriptions, combined with the abundance of free news that the internet offers, news corporations have had to turn to internet advertising revenue, the value of which is determined by the amount of traffic to a website or number of clicks on an article. This is why you will see headlines these days which don't summarize the story, as they used to, but are designed to pique one's curiosity, for example "Popular Toy Store May Go Bankrupt Soon". It leaves the reader wondering "What store? Is it Toys R Us?" and then they click to get the answer. There are also intentionally incomplete headlines such as "Taxi Driver Locked Teenaged Girls and Cab and Drove them to Police Because They". These are headlines on Yahoo today.

This revenue drop has also resulted in poorer quality news. You might notice, many news stories these days don't seem to have been read by editors. That's because there often are none. It was not only the job of the editor to proof read, but to also fact check I was speaking with a journalist with what used to be the largest news paper on the west coast, and he said news room staff has decreased from 300 people to 100 people during his career as a journalist.

Another thing we have seen over the past 17 or so years is a change in the types of stories. This is also due to the internet. The internet used to be a place where people would turn for a break from everyday life, with websites such as ebaumsworld or wecanhazcheeseburgers, and that culture has persisted to a large degree. People seem to prefer to click on stories that are less than serious, or stories that trigger strong emotional responses. For example, a story about "An instagramer's incredible transformation" may receive more clicks than a story about all of the resolutions passed at the UN that day, or a famine in Ethiopia (yes again).

Here is a list of headlines from the New York times on July 22, 1985.

South Africa's state of emergency went into effect, and with the near-absolute powers granted them under the emergency.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff oppose ratification by the United States of internationally agreed revisions of the 1949 Geneva Conventions on treatment of combatants and war victims that are intended to enhance humane treatment of combatants and civilians during war.

Israeli-Chinese economic ties have been quietly developing in recent months, according to Israeli officials.

Reworking of the U.S. bases treaty with the Philippines has been called for by Philippine Government leaders in retaliation for a proposed reduction in United States military aid to Manila recently voted by the House.

President Reagan must take a role in the budget negotiations, the Senate majority leader, Bob Dole, said.

Military research at top universities is returning in force, spurred by the Reagan Administration's project to develop a shield against nuclear missiles and reviving a heated debate over the proper role of universities in developing weapons systems.

The New York Times is still a fairly reputable, serious source of news, however, at the time, these headlines were nothing unusual and fairly standard. Compare them with the standard headlines of today and the differences are striking and concerning.



RainMom2015
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

Joined: 26 Aug 2015
Posts: 31
Location: Florida

19 Sep 2017, 5:48 pm

How about have Trump shut down his twitter account... Like he really has ANYTHING interesting to say !



Chichikov
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Mar 2016
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,151
Location: UK

19 Sep 2017, 6:05 pm

RainMom2015 wrote:
How about have Trump shut down his twitter account... Like he really has ANYTHING interesting to say !

Yeah, those right-wingers always trying to block and silence people with opposing views!



RainMom2015
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

Joined: 26 Aug 2015
Posts: 31
Location: Florida

20 Sep 2017, 12:49 pm

Chichikov wrote:
RainMom2015 wrote:
How about have Trump shut down his twitter account... Like he really has ANYTHING interesting to say !

Yeah, those right-wingers always trying to block and silence people with opposing views!

I'm not to block or silence anyone.. I'm the first person who believes in Freedom of speech ! Just make sure you have something worth speaking about ! Stop trying to blame everyone else ! if Trump doesn't agree with it, it's called " fake news " why can't he just admit maybe I was wrong, I'll look into it.. anything is better then shutting people down with his so called Fake news answer.....



Chichikov
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Mar 2016
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,151
Location: UK

20 Sep 2017, 7:46 pm

RainMom2015 wrote:
Chichikov wrote:
RainMom2015 wrote:
How about have Trump shut down his twitter account... Like he really has ANYTHING interesting to say !

Yeah, those right-wingers always trying to block and silence people with opposing views!

I'm not to block or silence anyone.. I'm the first person who believes in Freedom of speech ! Just make sure you have something worth speaking about ! Stop trying to blame everyone else ! if Trump doesn't agree with it, it's called " fake news " why can't he just admit maybe I was wrong, I'll look into it.. anything is better then shutting people down with his so called Fake news answer.....

You: I believe in free speech

Also you: I wish people who said things I don't agree with stopped saying them, not just to me but to anyone else



RainMom2015
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

Joined: 26 Aug 2015
Posts: 31
Location: Florida

22 Sep 2017, 7:31 am

Chichikov wrote:
RainMom2015 wrote:
Chichikov wrote:
RainMom2015 wrote:
How about have Trump shut down his twitter account... Like he really has ANYTHING interesting to say !

Yeah, those right-wingers always trying to block and silence people with opposing views!

I'm not to block or silence anyone.. I'm the first person who believes in Freedom of speech ! Just make sure you have something worth speaking about ! Stop trying to blame everyone else ! if Trump doesn't agree with it, it's called " fake news " why can't he just admit maybe I was wrong, I'll look into it.. anything is better then shutting people down with his so called Fake news answer.....

You: I believe in free speech

Also you: I wish people who said things I don't agree with stopped saying them, not just to me but to anyone else
Let me make myself very clear, I listen to what everyone has to say, right or wrong I'm not afraid to hear others opinions, and yes I do have an open mind and I'm not judgmental. This ENTIRE post has been about one person and one person only, Trump. I could care less about anything he has to say due to he has no idea what the hell he's talking about... But hey, since you seem to keep him in great regard's, come to my country and take him home to the UK with you.. Trust me when I say this, he won't be missed ! :D



Aristophanes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Apr 2014
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,603
Location: USA

22 Sep 2017, 8:30 am

Freedom of speech is not the same as agreeing with said speech. One is a principle that everyone gets a voice, the other is about what that voice is actually saying. It's perfectly compatible to allow a person's speech and then pick apart what was actually said, they are two completely different things. Second, the freedom of speech is a contract between a government and citizen, not a pact among citizens-- your freedom of speech goes away when you exit public property. Take WP for example, it has it's own set of rules and regulations regarding speech and members can be/have been banned for speech that violates the internal rules, the government and it's contract of 'free speech' doesn't apply here because WP is a private property, not a public property, thus the government has no authority to mandate it's own contract here.



Chichikov
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Mar 2016
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,151
Location: UK

22 Sep 2017, 9:29 am

RainMom2015 wrote:
Let me make myself very clear

You already have. You want Trump to shut down his twitter account because he has nothing interesting to say. I'm going to point out the obvious here that what you actually mean is that in your opinion he has nothing interesting to say. So because *you* are not interested in what he has to say no-one should hear what he has to say. You then say you support free speech despite the obvious (to me anyway) contradiction?

RainMom2015 wrote:
But hey, since you seem to keep him in great regard's, come to my country and take him home to the UK with you..

Where have you got the impression I hold him in high regard? Where have I given any indication about what I feel about him either good or bad? Because I pull you up for wanting to abolish free speech that means I have to support the person whose speech you are trying to silence? That's a non-sequitur. I *genuinely* support free speech no matter who is saying it or what they are saying (legal boundaries respected of course).

As for him coming to the UK....well....the left are hard at work trying to stop that from happening. Funny that.



BaalChatzaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Mar 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,050
Location: Monroe Twp. NJ

22 Sep 2017, 10:40 am

DarthMetaKnight wrote:

'
I saw this coming. Conservatives hate the internet because it exposes people to differing opinions. :wink:


Don't worry. I wont happen. Without the internet the U.S. economy will come to a screeching halt.


_________________
Socrates' Last Words: I drank what!! !?????


Aspiegaming
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Sep 2012
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,044
Location: Hagerstown, MD

22 Sep 2017, 10:55 am

Aristophanes wrote:
Freedom of speech is not the same as agreeing with said speech. One is a principle that everyone gets a voice, the other is about what that voice is actually saying. It's perfectly compatible to allow a person's speech and then pick apart what was actually said, they are two completely different things. Second, the freedom of speech is a contract between a government and citizen, not a pact among citizens-- your freedom of speech goes away when you exit public property. Take WP for example, it has it's own set of rules and regulations regarding speech and members can be/have been banned for speech that violates the internal rules, the government and it's contract of 'free speech' doesn't apply here because WP is a private property, not a public property, thus the government has no authority to mandate it's own contract here.

So the only solution to free speech is to turn all public property over to the private sector. We'd still have freedom of speech, but we'd have no place to use it.


_________________
I am sick, and in so being I am the healthy one.

If my darkness or eccentricness offends you, I don't really care.

I will not apologize for being me.


Aristophanes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Apr 2014
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,603
Location: USA

22 Sep 2017, 11:29 am

Aspiegaming wrote:
Aristophanes wrote:
Freedom of speech is not the same as agreeing with said speech. One is a principle that everyone gets a voice, the other is about what that voice is actually saying. It's perfectly compatible to allow a person's speech and then pick apart what was actually said, they are two completely different things. Second, the freedom of speech is a contract between a government and citizen, not a pact among citizens-- your freedom of speech goes away when you exit public property. Take WP for example, it has it's own set of rules and regulations regarding speech and members can be/have been banned for speech that violates the internal rules, the government and it's contract of 'free speech' doesn't apply here because WP is a private property, not a public property, thus the government has no authority to mandate it's own contract here.

So the only solution to free speech is to turn all public property over to the private sector. We'd still have freedom of speech, but we'd have no place to use it.

If everything were private property your speech would have to be acceptable to whomever's property you were on. But there's as much public land as there is private land in the U.S. so that's not really a concern. My only point is that over the last 2-3 years I've seen people's idea of free speech change to one where they think they have the right to say anything anywhere, and expect the government to tamp down the free speech of others they don't agree with. None of that passes constitutional muster, the government claims in the Bill of Rights that they won't impede a citizen's free speech, the Bill of Rights makes no claims about the government defending your speech against others (that would be impossible because by default the government has chosen sides, thus impinging other's freedom of speech), nor does the Bill of Rights apply to situations between citizens, it is ONLY applicable between the government and the citizens.

If a public institution bars a person or group from access to their property that's a 1st amendment issue, if some other group shows up to your rally and drowns you out, that is not a 1st amendment issue, the government granted access which is all they guarantee in the Constitution. Other laws may apply, but not the 1st amendment. If someone shows up to your business or home and starts saying inflammatory things, you have every right to give them the boot and that's not a 1st amendment issue because again, the Bill of Rights is a contract between the people and the government not between private individuals/groups. There is no such thing as 'freedom of speech' in a private institution or residence, any speech in the private sector is at the discretion of the person/group that owns the property, and that's not a 1st amendment issue because, again, it only applies to the government.



ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,245
Location: Long Island, New York

22 Sep 2017, 11:37 am

Aristophanes wrote:
Aspiegaming wrote:
Aristophanes wrote:
Freedom of speech is not the same as agreeing with said speech. One is a principle that everyone gets a voice, the other is about what that voice is actually saying. It's perfectly compatible to allow a person's speech and then pick apart what was actually said, they are two completely different things. Second, the freedom of speech is a contract between a government and citizen, not a pact among citizens-- your freedom of speech goes away when you exit public property. Take WP for example, it has it's own set of rules and regulations regarding speech and members can be/have been banned for speech that violates the internal rules, the government and it's contract of 'free speech' doesn't apply here because WP is a private property, not a public property, thus the government has no authority to mandate it's own contract here.

So the only solution to free speech is to turn all public property over to the private sector. We'd still have freedom of speech, but we'd have no place to use it.

If everything were private property your speech would have to be acceptable to whomever's property you were on. But there's as much public land as there is private land in the U.S. so that's not really a concern. My only point is that over the last 2-3 years I've seen people's idea of free speech change to one where they think they have the right to say anything anywhere, and expect the government to tamp down the free speech of others they don't agree with. None of that passes constitutional muster, the government claims in the Bill of Rights that they won't impede a citizen's free speech, the Bill of Rights makes no claims about the government defending your speech against others (that would be impossible because by default the government has chosen sides, thus impinging other's freedom of speech), nor does the Bill of Rights apply to situations between citizens, it is ONLY applicable between the government and the citizens.

If a public institution bars a person or group from access to their property that's a 1st amendment issue, if some other group shows up to your rally and drowns you out, that is not a 1st amendment issue, the government granted access which is all they guarantee in the Constitution. Other laws may apply, but not the 1st amendment. If someone shows up to your business or home and starts saying inflammatory things, you have every right to give them the boot and that's not a 1st amendment issue because again, the Bill of Rights is a contract between the people and the government not between private individuals/groups. There is no such thing as 'freedom of speech' in a private institution or residence, any speech in the private sector is at the discretion of the person/group that owns the property, and that's not a 1st amendment issue because, again, it only applies to the government.


That is why when discussing SJW’s and speech codes censorship is more accurate terminology then free speech.


_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity

“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman


CockneyRebel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jul 2004
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,298
Location: Stalag 13

22 Sep 2017, 9:53 pm

He hasn't succeeded, yet. Let's celebrate!


_________________
Who wants to adopt a Sweet Pea?