COMMENTS: 27
User-Generated Censorship
April 30, 2008 |
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Media and Culture headlines via email.
Advertisement
Now that anyone with access to a computer and a network connection can post almost anything they want online for free, it's also increasingly the case that anyone with computer access and a few friends can remove anything they want online. And they do it using the same software tools.
Here's how it works: let's say you're a community activist who has some pretty vehement opinions about your city government. You go to Blogger.com, which is owned by Google, and create a free blog called Why the Municipal Government in Crappy City Sucks. Of course, a bunch of people in Crappy City disagree with you -- and maybe even hate you personally. So instead of making mean comments on your blog, they decide to shut it down.
At the top of your Blogger blog, there is a little button that says "flag this blog." When somebody hits that button, it sends a message to Google that somebody thinks the content on your blog is "inappropriate" in some way. If you get enough flags, Google will shut down your blog. In theory, this button would only be used to flag illegal stuff or spam. But there's nothing stopping your enemies in town from getting together an online posse to click the button a bunch of times. Eventually, your blog will be flagged enough times that Google will take action.
And this is where things get interesting. Google has the option of simply shutting down your access to the blog. They rarely do that, though, unless it's a situation where your blog is full of illegal content, like copyright-infringing videos. Generally what Google does if you get a lot of flags is make your blog impossible to find. Nobody will be able to find it if they search Blogger or Google. The only people who will find it are people who already know about it and have the exact URL.
This is censorship, user-generated style. And it works because the only way to be seen in a giant network of user-generated content like Blogger (or MySpace, or Flickr, or any number of others) is to be searchable. If you want to get the word out about Crappy City online, you need for people searching Google for "Crappy City" to find your blog and learn about all the bad things going on there. What good is your free speech if nobody can find it?
Most sites that have user-generated content, like photo-sharing site Flickr and video-sharing site YouTube, use a system of flags similar to Blogger's that allow users to censor each other. Sometimes you have to pick a good reason why you are flagging content -- YouTube offers you a drop-down menu with about 20 choices -- and sometimes you just flag it as "unsafe" or "inappropriate." Generally, most sites respond to flagging the same way: they make the flagged stuff unsearchable and unfindable.
Censorship isn't working the old-fashioned way. Your videos and blogs aren't being removed. They're simply being hidden in the deluge of user-generated information. To be unsearchable on the Web is, in a very real sense, to be censored. But you're not being censored by an authority from on high. You're being censored by the mob.
That's why I find myself rolling my eyes when I hear people getting excited about "the wisdom of crowds" and "crowdsourcing" and all that crap. Sure, crowds can be wise and they can get a lot of work done. But they also can also be destructive, cruel, and stupid. They can prevent work from being done as easily as they can make it easier. And just as the Web is making it easier for crowds to collaborate, the Web is also making it simple for mobs to crush free expression.
Annalee Newitz annalee@techsploitaiton.com is a surly media nerd whose blogs cannot be censored by the mob, even though she's well aware that there are mobs who would certainly like to do it.
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest Media and Culture headlines via email
Stay up to date with the latest Media and Culture headlines via email
COMMENTS ( 27 )
READ COMMENTS
LOGIN OR
REGISTER TO POST A COMMENT
Comments are closed-
And yet...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Apr 30, 2008 8:22 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Apr 30, 2008 8:22 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... last time all this online writing was supposed to be avoiding censorship that those dastardly old physical books were so subject to.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» It's much more insidious than that.
Posted by: KeepsonTickn
Comments are closed-
So Apropos
Posted by: Plexius on Apr 30, 2008 8:25 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: Plexius on Apr 30, 2008 8:25 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank you for this insightful article. It occured to me after reading it, that corporations and political ideologues and especially religious groups are likely to find this information and start censoring all progressive speech on the net.
The religious fascists are particularly well organized for letter writing and phoning their displeasure. Now their leaders can squash rationalists by exhorting their huge flocks to go online to a blog spot and clik a button. Pretty damn scary.
The religious fascists are particularly well organized for letter writing and phoning their displeasure. Now their leaders can squash rationalists by exhorting their huge flocks to go online to a blog spot and clik a button. Pretty damn scary.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
The Enclosure is just about complete
Posted by: talkville on May 1, 2008 4:05 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: talkville on May 1, 2008 4:05 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Capitalists know what they're doing. This is their "New Farm", their "New Cash Cow". Anyone who thinks that liberty on-line would be easier or more accessible to individuals on- rather than off- line is encountering the ongoing dynamics of Power.
Soon enough, the Requirement that a flag option or similar procedure be available on all url's, .com, .org or whatever, will be slyly implemented by a Superior Provider, be it Google or the ISP or whatever. This will be done in the name of a kind of ethics that places supreme and indisputable universal value on Innocence (e.g.: the Child).
We always forget: the Gate-way into the City for all who live outside the Gates requires a Toll. This is not a Free City; it is Owned by Telecomms. First, it was the Bait: presented as a Commons where all could gather (like a public park, perhaps) and inter-act and mill around at will. In dynamic phases, the Commons 'magically' transforms into the Switch: pay to play, behave, speak only what's acceptable to us, follow our rules. You have no choice; you are only a peasant, a worker, an individual with circumscribed negative freedoms: the GOVERNMENT can't stop you from speaking out; the GOVERNMENT can't stop you from assembling. But this isn't the Government. You are only a User and, thus, Dependent on the Will of the Supplier. That Supplier is the Capitalist.
Just like in the "meat-world", the conditions will be analogous.
Actually, much easier for the Capitalist; so much easier and cheaper to control, manipulate and dis-empower the masses of all of us un-washed, dissenting, rag-tag proletarians.
Ultimately, speech, organizing, mobilizing, protesting, and all other forms of asserting and protecting and defending OUR interests must take place in that boring, actual, real, flesh-and-blood world. Against ALL owners and capitalists who operate in exactly these same ways down HERE, where people get up, go to work, pay for gas, pay for food, pay for shelter, seek employment, seek education, seek basic health care, seek..... social justice.
Any 'flagging' done down here must take place at City Halls, in the Courts, or sometimes in the streets.
Soon enough, the Requirement that a flag option or similar procedure be available on all url's, .com, .org or whatever, will be slyly implemented by a Superior Provider, be it Google or the ISP or whatever. This will be done in the name of a kind of ethics that places supreme and indisputable universal value on Innocence (e.g.: the Child).
We always forget: the Gate-way into the City for all who live outside the Gates requires a Toll. This is not a Free City; it is Owned by Telecomms. First, it was the Bait: presented as a Commons where all could gather (like a public park, perhaps) and inter-act and mill around at will. In dynamic phases, the Commons 'magically' transforms into the Switch: pay to play, behave, speak only what's acceptable to us, follow our rules. You have no choice; you are only a peasant, a worker, an individual with circumscribed negative freedoms: the GOVERNMENT can't stop you from speaking out; the GOVERNMENT can't stop you from assembling. But this isn't the Government. You are only a User and, thus, Dependent on the Will of the Supplier. That Supplier is the Capitalist.
Just like in the "meat-world", the conditions will be analogous.
Actually, much easier for the Capitalist; so much easier and cheaper to control, manipulate and dis-empower the masses of all of us un-washed, dissenting, rag-tag proletarians.
Ultimately, speech, organizing, mobilizing, protesting, and all other forms of asserting and protecting and defending OUR interests must take place in that boring, actual, real, flesh-and-blood world. Against ALL owners and capitalists who operate in exactly these same ways down HERE, where people get up, go to work, pay for gas, pay for food, pay for shelter, seek employment, seek education, seek basic health care, seek..... social justice.
Any 'flagging' done down here must take place at City Halls, in the Courts, or sometimes in the streets.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Google isn't as great as people think
Posted by: Jasonix on May 1, 2008 9:05 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: Jasonix on May 1, 2008 9:05 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The operating philosophy at Google is that things are ranked according to popularity. When you search for something at Google, the first pages you find are the ones with the most hits. Therefore, if your site doesn't draw a lot of visitors, or if they flag it as offensive, Google puts it way down on the list.
This sounds democratic, but the fact is that the average person has a 100 IQ and likes titillating subject matter. This means that a search for sites about conspiracy theories, for example, is more likely to turn up sites that spread them rather than sites that debunk them. It means that someone researching Creationism, for example, using Google isn't necessarily going to get a balanced sampling of viewpoints.
There are other search engines, of course, but ultimately, I think there has to be improvements in filtering technology to allow users to use more meaningful search criteria. For someone trying to do serious academic research, Google might not be the best tool with its current ranking logic. The same for someone trying to get views on all sides of an issue.
On social networking and forum sites, people shouldn't be allowed to anonymously rate stuff, either. That's not how things work in real life - when you praise or diss somebody, you are present to the person you're talking to, so they can surmise your motives, intelligence, etc. When you just click "one-star" on a site, you're given equal weight with everyone, even if you're a fool. Case in point - yesterday some dope posted a note on AlterNet that the governing body of the Freemasons, the Illuminati, were trying to make us think that oil was running out because they planned to annihilate 90% of the human race and rule the world from underground cities powered by some type of sci-fi energy source (ZPE, perpetual motion, etc.). He said that overpopulation is a lie, because if we mashed every human being into a pile of bodies, the mass of flesh would roughly cover Texas like garbage in a landfill - since we can't pave a larger chunk of the world than Texas with non-stop human flesh, overpopulation must be a lie. I rebutted that fool. Initially, I got a 5 rating. I check back two hours later, I have a 3 - because the conspiracy theory nut case presumably gave me a 1. There is nothing to say, though, that my rating came from a lunatic.
This sounds democratic, but the fact is that the average person has a 100 IQ and likes titillating subject matter. This means that a search for sites about conspiracy theories, for example, is more likely to turn up sites that spread them rather than sites that debunk them. It means that someone researching Creationism, for example, using Google isn't necessarily going to get a balanced sampling of viewpoints.
There are other search engines, of course, but ultimately, I think there has to be improvements in filtering technology to allow users to use more meaningful search criteria. For someone trying to do serious academic research, Google might not be the best tool with its current ranking logic. The same for someone trying to get views on all sides of an issue.
On social networking and forum sites, people shouldn't be allowed to anonymously rate stuff, either. That's not how things work in real life - when you praise or diss somebody, you are present to the person you're talking to, so they can surmise your motives, intelligence, etc. When you just click "one-star" on a site, you're given equal weight with everyone, even if you're a fool. Case in point - yesterday some dope posted a note on AlterNet that the governing body of the Freemasons, the Illuminati, were trying to make us think that oil was running out because they planned to annihilate 90% of the human race and rule the world from underground cities powered by some type of sci-fi energy source (ZPE, perpetual motion, etc.). He said that overpopulation is a lie, because if we mashed every human being into a pile of bodies, the mass of flesh would roughly cover Texas like garbage in a landfill - since we can't pave a larger chunk of the world than Texas with non-stop human flesh, overpopulation must be a lie. I rebutted that fool. Initially, I got a 5 rating. I check back two hours later, I have a 3 - because the conspiracy theory nut case presumably gave me a 1. There is nothing to say, though, that my rating came from a lunatic.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Google isn't as great as people think
Posted by: sweet_byrd
» global human population lying down covers 30x40 miles
Posted by: nigelbest
» RE: BTW, the space that the collected mass of humanity takes up...
Posted by: Jasonix
Comments are closed-
Set up your own node or pay for hosting on a fast server!
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on May 1, 2008 10:36 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on May 1, 2008 10:36 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The real question here is how to set up independent news outlets on the internet - real news outlets, with at least one editor, a few reporters and some fact-checkers - a minimum of five people working full time, say - and get that paid for. The real cost there is people's salaries.
Closed, pay-per-view access is one option - but that immediately cuts out most of the audience. For news, it really is not an option.
Advertising is another option. However, does that spin the news? What if a small news organization becomes dependent on one or two advertisers, who then threaten to pull the plug?
But really, this is all about information warfare, is it not? And the Internet is now the world's battlefield in the information wars. Major efforts to control and limit access are underway, but at this point trying to do that is a bit like trying to get rid of television or movies.
Instead, what your are seeing now is more of the "come to Big Brother" approach to controlling the internet, which is to construct "Walled Cities" of users in cubicles - the MySpace / FaceBook / communist China system, which many other groups have adopted.
As far as Google goes, their activities in China could bear scrutiny - but that goes for Patagonia, WalMart, and plenty of others.
What is disturbing is that U.S. corporations work hand-in-glove with repressive governments to design internet monitoring systems that really do make Big Brother a reality.
Imagine a world in which the only place you could go on the Internet was to your MySpace cubicle, which you would log into with a thumbprint and retina scan. From your cubicle, you could access many different entertainment and news channels - all controlled by Rupert Murdoch's clone - but that's it. Over the years, the system would collect every bit of information it could about you - every site visited, every person interacted with - and it would create a "virtual profile" of you, your interests, and your preferences.
That "virtual profile" would then be used to direct advertising to you that fitted your interests, and your Myspace cubicle would sort of "mold" itself to you. Then it would insert probes into all your bodily orifices, like in that Matrix movie, and slowly sap your energy and initiative for the rest of your natural life. (Too bad they made those sequels, huh? Oh well... actors need jobs, I suppose.)
But screw all that. I want free access to Lexis-Nexis. Why can't someone figure out a way to do that?
Closed, pay-per-view access is one option - but that immediately cuts out most of the audience. For news, it really is not an option.
Advertising is another option. However, does that spin the news? What if a small news organization becomes dependent on one or two advertisers, who then threaten to pull the plug?
But really, this is all about information warfare, is it not? And the Internet is now the world's battlefield in the information wars. Major efforts to control and limit access are underway, but at this point trying to do that is a bit like trying to get rid of television or movies.
Instead, what your are seeing now is more of the "come to Big Brother" approach to controlling the internet, which is to construct "Walled Cities" of users in cubicles - the MySpace / FaceBook / communist China system, which many other groups have adopted.
As far as Google goes, their activities in China could bear scrutiny - but that goes for Patagonia, WalMart, and plenty of others.
What is disturbing is that U.S. corporations work hand-in-glove with repressive governments to design internet monitoring systems that really do make Big Brother a reality.
Imagine a world in which the only place you could go on the Internet was to your MySpace cubicle, which you would log into with a thumbprint and retina scan. From your cubicle, you could access many different entertainment and news channels - all controlled by Rupert Murdoch's clone - but that's it. Over the years, the system would collect every bit of information it could about you - every site visited, every person interacted with - and it would create a "virtual profile" of you, your interests, and your preferences.
That "virtual profile" would then be used to direct advertising to you that fitted your interests, and your Myspace cubicle would sort of "mold" itself to you. Then it would insert probes into all your bodily orifices, like in that Matrix movie, and slowly sap your energy and initiative for the rest of your natural life. (Too bad they made those sequels, huh? Oh well... actors need jobs, I suppose.)
But screw all that. I want free access to Lexis-Nexis. Why can't someone figure out a way to do that?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: yes! I posted the same thing before reading yours
Posted by: stilldreaming
Comments are closed-
Where's Terrorist?!!
Posted by: jwhitneywise on May 1, 2008 1:32 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: jwhitneywise on May 1, 2008 1:32 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Isn't this article a perfect example of...
DIRECT DEMOCRACY
DIRECT DEMOCRACY
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: No it is not direct democracy at all
Posted by: Julian
» RE: No it is not direct democracy at all
Posted by: fitzjohn
Comments are closed-
Bullying 2.0
Posted by: sweet_byrd on May 1, 2008 3:11 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: sweet_byrd on May 1, 2008 3:11 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"crowds ... also be destructive, cruel, and stupid. They can prevent work from being done as easily as they can make it easier."
Anyone who was bullied (not just teased, but systematically tormented) as a child instinctively knows this.
"just as the Web is making it easier for crowds to collaborate, the Web is also making it simple for mobs to crush free expression."
Again, anyone who has their psyche systematically crushed by their peers knows that one of the symptoms of the bullied is that they shut down -- stop speaking up, contributing or standing out for fear of drawing attention to themselves. It seems like the Web is not simply facilitating this, but making the age-old process a bit more honest. Instead of tormenting a person into self-negation, Web-based systems openly negate you. None of those hollow and self-serving (yet strangely persuasive to the unknowing) arguments that say, in essence "It was her choice not to talk for two years. I don't see how anyone could think it was my fault she stopped talking just because I whacked her upside the head every time she opened her mouth."
Anyone who was bullied (not just teased, but systematically tormented) as a child instinctively knows this.
"just as the Web is making it easier for crowds to collaborate, the Web is also making it simple for mobs to crush free expression."
Again, anyone who has their psyche systematically crushed by their peers knows that one of the symptoms of the bullied is that they shut down -- stop speaking up, contributing or standing out for fear of drawing attention to themselves. It seems like the Web is not simply facilitating this, but making the age-old process a bit more honest. Instead of tormenting a person into self-negation, Web-based systems openly negate you. None of those hollow and self-serving (yet strangely persuasive to the unknowing) arguments that say, in essence "It was her choice not to talk for two years. I don't see how anyone could think it was my fault she stopped talking just because I whacked her upside the head every time she opened her mouth."
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Bummer
Posted by: www.suekatz.com on May 2, 2008 3:44 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: www.suekatz.com on May 2, 2008 3:44 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks for this. Your helpful, eye-opening explanation of flagging explains how it potentially affects every blogger like myself. One small point: I'm not crazy about the use of the word "crowd." That seems to remove volition and responsibility from the individuals who are vandalizing/censoring another person's work. When they get together to do that, they're part of a "campaign" or "movement," surely. "Crowd" is like "mob" - it erases individual accountability.
Thanks again,
Sue
Thanks again,
Sue
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Current Legal Case Being Fought for Internet Freedom
Posted by: Chevaliere on May 2, 2008 3:57 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: Chevaliere on May 2, 2008 3:57 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Have a look here: Internet Free Speech Under Threat! Eric Pepin - Higher Balance Institute Sue QFG for 4.47 Million Over SOTT Forum Comments!
The attorneys for sott.net have, apparently, filed motions to strike according to this forum post here
..which is part of the actual forum discussion that is the object of the 4.7 million dollar lawsuit.
Well worth reading to see what kinds of gangs there are out there and what they can do to you. If nothing else, sott.net has had to spend a lot of money just to defend their right to discuss on a forum!
If they lose, we are all screwed!
The attorneys for sott.net have, apparently, filed motions to strike according to this forum post here
..which is part of the actual forum discussion that is the object of the 4.7 million dollar lawsuit.
Well worth reading to see what kinds of gangs there are out there and what they can do to you. If nothing else, sott.net has had to spend a lot of money just to defend their right to discuss on a forum!
If they lose, we are all screwed!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Craigslist "Crowds" Do the Same Thing on Rants & Raves
Posted by: terradea42 on May 2, 2008 5:14 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: terradea42 on May 2, 2008 5:14 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If I say something anti-business or anti-capitalist in the "Rants & Raves" section, my comment disappears within the day as being flagged as "inappropriate." But the pro-Bush and the racist crowd seem to enjoy unfettered access and exposure.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Errata
Posted by: marxalot on May 2, 2008 5:57 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: marxalot on May 2, 2008 5:57 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"The web makes it easy for cowards to collaborate."
There, I fixed that for you.
There, I fixed that for you.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: rrata
Posted by: Amphetameme
Comments are closed-
Why do we expect to publish for free?
Posted by: stilldreaming on May 2, 2008 1:57 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: stilldreaming on May 2, 2008 1:57 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
there's no free lunch. Google and others are not "the commons," .. and why do we expect Google to be in favor of free speech? They censored free speech for the communist Chinese dicators, like Yahoo did too, not caring that a political disenter went to jail.
The blogger who wants to do his/her own investigative reporting on Crappy City and self-publish on the web needs to pay the small fee required to have their own domain and install blogging software, available free in places.
Then, let's all be sure the Net remains "free" as in all that NetNeutrality stuff.
Paying a few pennies ($20/month or?) is not too much to ask so one is not under the whim of a big corporate owner.
The blogger who wants to do his/her own investigative reporting on Crappy City and self-publish on the web needs to pay the small fee required to have their own domain and install blogging software, available free in places.
Then, let's all be sure the Net remains "free" as in all that NetNeutrality stuff.
Paying a few pennies ($20/month or?) is not too much to ask so one is not under the whim of a big corporate owner.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Why do we expect to publish for free?
Posted by: stilldreaming
» No, no, you don't get it.
Posted by: KeepsonTickn
Comments are closed-
Our Right to make Asses of ourselves in Public
Posted by: Purple Girl on May 2, 2008 2:33 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: Purple Girl on May 2, 2008 2:33 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I love Free Speech- even when I disagree.
I truely love the public forum.
Such idiots like BillO & Rush offend me when ever i hear anyting about their thoughts on anything. But it gives me ammunition to combat them with in the village Square.
however when it is censorship because a group has targeted you (and you are not selling kiddee Porn) That is wrong. If the 'Religious Right' collectively targets a Gay Website that must be stopped! I don't go on to obvious websites I don't agree with to attack them so they should not be allowed. I control my internet like I do my TV- if I don't like it I change the 'channel'
I truely love the public forum.
Such idiots like BillO & Rush offend me when ever i hear anyting about their thoughts on anything. But it gives me ammunition to combat them with in the village Square.
however when it is censorship because a group has targeted you (and you are not selling kiddee Porn) That is wrong. If the 'Religious Right' collectively targets a Gay Website that must be stopped! I don't go on to obvious websites I don't agree with to attack them so they should not be allowed. I control my internet like I do my TV- if I don't like it I change the 'channel'
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Non-profit Search Engine Web Site (maybe?)
Posted by: halg on May 4, 2008 1:06 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: halg on May 4, 2008 1:06 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wonder if simply having an Internet search system run by a non-profit (read: non-corporate) might help solve the problem. (Note that I said "might help;" obviously, this is a complex problem.)
Content providers could still block content, but at least content that IS accessible could be discovered with an open, democratic search tool.
Only trouble is ... how to fund the non-profit. Hmmmm, maybe by other non-profits seeking a cheaper alternative for getting their voice heard?
Content providers could still block content, but at least content that IS accessible could be discovered with an open, democratic search tool.
Only trouble is ... how to fund the non-profit. Hmmmm, maybe by other non-profits seeking a cheaper alternative for getting their voice heard?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Ah, yes
Posted by: Philip Newton on May 4, 2008 4:42 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: Philip Newton on May 4, 2008 4:42 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Even here in Liberalville (perhaps especially so) the incensed, righteous protectors of free speech (as long as it agrees with theirs) go about trying to quash, shout down, flag, censor and whine their way into Lefto-fascist frenzies of First Amendmant abuse.
Remarkable how differing opinions bring out the cyber-Nazi in some people.
Whatever happened to reasoned discourse in the commons? Or even unreasonable discourse, but discourse, of some type?
Swallowed by a national pathology of narcissisim and intolerance.
Remarkable how differing opinions bring out the cyber-Nazi in some people.
Whatever happened to reasoned discourse in the commons? Or even unreasonable discourse, but discourse, of some type?
Swallowed by a national pathology of narcissisim and intolerance.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Censorship: Everybody Does It
Posted by: Elurby on May 6, 2008 5:16 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: Elurby on May 6, 2008 5:16 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
#######
#######
Censorship: Everybody Does It
http://foundersamerica67.blogspot.com/
#######
#######
#######
Censorship: Everybody Does It
http://foundersamerica67.blogspot.com/
#######
#######
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Alternet Comments:
» It's much more insidious than that.
Posted by: KeepsonTickn
» RE: Google isn't as great as people think
Posted by: sweet_byrd
» global human population lying down covers 30x40 miles
Posted by: nigelbest
» RE: BTW, the space that the collected mass of humanity takes up...
Posted by: Jasonix
» RE: yes! I posted the same thing before reading yours
Posted by: stilldreaming
» RE: No it is not direct democracy at all
Posted by: Julian
» RE: No it is not direct democracy at all
Posted by: fitzjohn
» RE: rrata
Posted by: Amphetameme
» RE: Why do we expect to publish for free?
Posted by: stilldreaming
» No, no, you don't get it.
Posted by: KeepsonTickn
Comments are closed-
And yet...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Apr 30, 2008 8:22 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Apr 30, 2008 8:22 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... last time all this online writing was supposed to be avoiding censorship that those dastardly old physical books were so subject to.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» It's much more insidious than that.
Posted by: KeepsonTickn
Comments are closed-
So Apropos
Posted by: Plexius on Apr 30, 2008 8:25 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: Plexius on Apr 30, 2008 8:25 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank you for this insightful article. It occured to me after reading it, that corporations and political ideologues and especially religious groups are likely to find this information and start censoring all progressive speech on the net.
The religious fascists are particularly well organized for letter writing and phoning their displeasure. Now their leaders can squash rationalists by exhorting their huge flocks to go online to a blog spot and clik a button. Pretty damn scary.
The religious fascists are particularly well organized for letter writing and phoning their displeasure. Now their leaders can squash rationalists by exhorting their huge flocks to go online to a blog spot and clik a button. Pretty damn scary.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
The Enclosure is just about complete
Posted by: talkville on May 1, 2008 4:05 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: talkville on May 1, 2008 4:05 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Capitalists know what they're doing. This is their "New Farm", their "New Cash Cow". Anyone who thinks that liberty on-line would be easier or more accessible to individuals on- rather than off- line is encountering the ongoing dynamics of Power.
Soon enough, the Requirement that a flag option or similar procedure be available on all url's, .com, .org or whatever, will be slyly implemented by a Superior Provider, be it Google or the ISP or whatever. This will be done in the name of a kind of ethics that places supreme and indisputable universal value on Innocence (e.g.: the Child).
We always forget: the Gate-way into the City for all who live outside the Gates requires a Toll. This is not a Free City; it is Owned by Telecomms. First, it was the Bait: presented as a Commons where all could gather (like a public park, perhaps) and inter-act and mill around at will. In dynamic phases, the Commons 'magically' transforms into the Switch: pay to play, behave, speak only what's acceptable to us, follow our rules. You have no choice; you are only a peasant, a worker, an individual with circumscribed negative freedoms: the GOVERNMENT can't stop you from speaking out; the GOVERNMENT can't stop you from assembling. But this isn't the Government. You are only a User and, thus, Dependent on the Will of the Supplier. That Supplier is the Capitalist.
Just like in the "meat-world", the conditions will be analogous.
Actually, much easier for the Capitalist; so much easier and cheaper to control, manipulate and dis-empower the masses of all of us un-washed, dissenting, rag-tag proletarians.
Ultimately, speech, organizing, mobilizing, protesting, and all other forms of asserting and protecting and defending OUR interests must take place in that boring, actual, real, flesh-and-blood world. Against ALL owners and capitalists who operate in exactly these same ways down HERE, where people get up, go to work, pay for gas, pay for food, pay for shelter, seek employment, seek education, seek basic health care, seek..... social justice.
Any 'flagging' done down here must take place at City Halls, in the Courts, or sometimes in the streets.
Soon enough, the Requirement that a flag option or similar procedure be available on all url's, .com, .org or whatever, will be slyly implemented by a Superior Provider, be it Google or the ISP or whatever. This will be done in the name of a kind of ethics that places supreme and indisputable universal value on Innocence (e.g.: the Child).
We always forget: the Gate-way into the City for all who live outside the Gates requires a Toll. This is not a Free City; it is Owned by Telecomms. First, it was the Bait: presented as a Commons where all could gather (like a public park, perhaps) and inter-act and mill around at will. In dynamic phases, the Commons 'magically' transforms into the Switch: pay to play, behave, speak only what's acceptable to us, follow our rules. You have no choice; you are only a peasant, a worker, an individual with circumscribed negative freedoms: the GOVERNMENT can't stop you from speaking out; the GOVERNMENT can't stop you from assembling. But this isn't the Government. You are only a User and, thus, Dependent on the Will of the Supplier. That Supplier is the Capitalist.
Just like in the "meat-world", the conditions will be analogous.
Actually, much easier for the Capitalist; so much easier and cheaper to control, manipulate and dis-empower the masses of all of us un-washed, dissenting, rag-tag proletarians.
Ultimately, speech, organizing, mobilizing, protesting, and all other forms of asserting and protecting and defending OUR interests must take place in that boring, actual, real, flesh-and-blood world. Against ALL owners and capitalists who operate in exactly these same ways down HERE, where people get up, go to work, pay for gas, pay for food, pay for shelter, seek employment, seek education, seek basic health care, seek..... social justice.
Any 'flagging' done down here must take place at City Halls, in the Courts, or sometimes in the streets.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Google isn't as great as people think
Posted by: Jasonix on May 1, 2008 9:05 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: Jasonix on May 1, 2008 9:05 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The operating philosophy at Google is that things are ranked according to popularity. When you search for something at Google, the first pages you find are the ones with the most hits. Therefore, if your site doesn't draw a lot of visitors, or if they flag it as offensive, Google puts it way down on the list.
This sounds democratic, but the fact is that the average person has a 100 IQ and likes titillating subject matter. This means that a search for sites about conspiracy theories, for example, is more likely to turn up sites that spread them rather than sites that debunk them. It means that someone researching Creationism, for example, using Google isn't necessarily going to get a balanced sampling of viewpoints.
There are other search engines, of course, but ultimately, I think there has to be improvements in filtering technology to allow users to use more meaningful search criteria. For someone trying to do serious academic research, Google might not be the best tool with its current ranking logic. The same for someone trying to get views on all sides of an issue.
On social networking and forum sites, people shouldn't be allowed to anonymously rate stuff, either. That's not how things work in real life - when you praise or diss somebody, you are present to the person you're talking to, so they can surmise your motives, intelligence, etc. When you just click "one-star" on a site, you're given equal weight with everyone, even if you're a fool. Case in point - yesterday some dope posted a note on AlterNet that the governing body of the Freemasons, the Illuminati, were trying to make us think that oil was running out because they planned to annihilate 90% of the human race and rule the world from underground cities powered by some type of sci-fi energy source (ZPE, perpetual motion, etc.). He said that overpopulation is a lie, because if we mashed every human being into a pile of bodies, the mass of flesh would roughly cover Texas like garbage in a landfill - since we can't pave a larger chunk of the world than Texas with non-stop human flesh, overpopulation must be a lie. I rebutted that fool. Initially, I got a 5 rating. I check back two hours later, I have a 3 - because the conspiracy theory nut case presumably gave me a 1. There is nothing to say, though, that my rating came from a lunatic.
This sounds democratic, but the fact is that the average person has a 100 IQ and likes titillating subject matter. This means that a search for sites about conspiracy theories, for example, is more likely to turn up sites that spread them rather than sites that debunk them. It means that someone researching Creationism, for example, using Google isn't necessarily going to get a balanced sampling of viewpoints.
There are other search engines, of course, but ultimately, I think there has to be improvements in filtering technology to allow users to use more meaningful search criteria. For someone trying to do serious academic research, Google might not be the best tool with its current ranking logic. The same for someone trying to get views on all sides of an issue.
On social networking and forum sites, people shouldn't be allowed to anonymously rate stuff, either. That's not how things work in real life - when you praise or diss somebody, you are present to the person you're talking to, so they can surmise your motives, intelligence, etc. When you just click "one-star" on a site, you're given equal weight with everyone, even if you're a fool. Case in point - yesterday some dope posted a note on AlterNet that the governing body of the Freemasons, the Illuminati, were trying to make us think that oil was running out because they planned to annihilate 90% of the human race and rule the world from underground cities powered by some type of sci-fi energy source (ZPE, perpetual motion, etc.). He said that overpopulation is a lie, because if we mashed every human being into a pile of bodies, the mass of flesh would roughly cover Texas like garbage in a landfill - since we can't pave a larger chunk of the world than Texas with non-stop human flesh, overpopulation must be a lie. I rebutted that fool. Initially, I got a 5 rating. I check back two hours later, I have a 3 - because the conspiracy theory nut case presumably gave me a 1. There is nothing to say, though, that my rating came from a lunatic.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Google isn't as great as people think
Posted by: sweet_byrd
» global human population lying down covers 30x40 miles
Posted by: nigelbest
» RE: BTW, the space that the collected mass of humanity takes up...
Posted by: Jasonix
Comments are closed-
Set up your own node or pay for hosting on a fast server!
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on May 1, 2008 10:36 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on May 1, 2008 10:36 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The real question here is how to set up independent news outlets on the internet - real news outlets, with at least one editor, a few reporters and some fact-checkers - a minimum of five people working full time, say - and get that paid for. The real cost there is people's salaries.
Closed, pay-per-view access is one option - but that immediately cuts out most of the audience. For news, it really is not an option.
Advertising is another option. However, does that spin the news? What if a small news organization becomes dependent on one or two advertisers, who then threaten to pull the plug?
But really, this is all about information warfare, is it not? And the Internet is now the world's battlefield in the information wars. Major efforts to control and limit access are underway, but at this point trying to do that is a bit like trying to get rid of television or movies.
Instead, what your are seeing now is more of the "come to Big Brother" approach to controlling the internet, which is to construct "Walled Cities" of users in cubicles - the MySpace / FaceBook / communist China system, which many other groups have adopted.
As far as Google goes, their activities in China could bear scrutiny - but that goes for Patagonia, WalMart, and plenty of others.
What is disturbing is that U.S. corporations work hand-in-glove with repressive governments to design internet monitoring systems that really do make Big Brother a reality.
Imagine a world in which the only place you could go on the Internet was to your MySpace cubicle, which you would log into with a thumbprint and retina scan. From your cubicle, you could access many different entertainment and news channels - all controlled by Rupert Murdoch's clone - but that's it. Over the years, the system would collect every bit of information it could about you - every site visited, every person interacted with - and it would create a "virtual profile" of you, your interests, and your preferences.
That "virtual profile" would then be used to direct advertising to you that fitted your interests, and your Myspace cubicle would sort of "mold" itself to you. Then it would insert probes into all your bodily orifices, like in that Matrix movie, and slowly sap your energy and initiative for the rest of your natural life. (Too bad they made those sequels, huh? Oh well... actors need jobs, I suppose.)
But screw all that. I want free access to Lexis-Nexis. Why can't someone figure out a way to do that?
Closed, pay-per-view access is one option - but that immediately cuts out most of the audience. For news, it really is not an option.
Advertising is another option. However, does that spin the news? What if a small news organization becomes dependent on one or two advertisers, who then threaten to pull the plug?
But really, this is all about information warfare, is it not? And the Internet is now the world's battlefield in the information wars. Major efforts to control and limit access are underway, but at this point trying to do that is a bit like trying to get rid of television or movies.
Instead, what your are seeing now is more of the "come to Big Brother" approach to controlling the internet, which is to construct "Walled Cities" of users in cubicles - the MySpace / FaceBook / communist China system, which many other groups have adopted.
As far as Google goes, their activities in China could bear scrutiny - but that goes for Patagonia, WalMart, and plenty of others.
What is disturbing is that U.S. corporations work hand-in-glove with repressive governments to design internet monitoring systems that really do make Big Brother a reality.
Imagine a world in which the only place you could go on the Internet was to your MySpace cubicle, which you would log into with a thumbprint and retina scan. From your cubicle, you could access many different entertainment and news channels - all controlled by Rupert Murdoch's clone - but that's it. Over the years, the system would collect every bit of information it could about you - every site visited, every person interacted with - and it would create a "virtual profile" of you, your interests, and your preferences.
That "virtual profile" would then be used to direct advertising to you that fitted your interests, and your Myspace cubicle would sort of "mold" itself to you. Then it would insert probes into all your bodily orifices, like in that Matrix movie, and slowly sap your energy and initiative for the rest of your natural life. (Too bad they made those sequels, huh? Oh well... actors need jobs, I suppose.)
But screw all that. I want free access to Lexis-Nexis. Why can't someone figure out a way to do that?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: yes! I posted the same thing before reading yours
Posted by: stilldreaming
Comments are closed-
Where's Terrorist?!!
Posted by: jwhitneywise on May 1, 2008 1:32 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: jwhitneywise on May 1, 2008 1:32 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Isn't this article a perfect example of...
DIRECT DEMOCRACY
DIRECT DEMOCRACY
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: No it is not direct democracy at all
Posted by: Julian
» RE: No it is not direct democracy at all
Posted by: fitzjohn
Comments are closed-
Bullying 2.0
Posted by: sweet_byrd on May 1, 2008 3:11 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: sweet_byrd on May 1, 2008 3:11 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"crowds ... also be destructive, cruel, and stupid. They can prevent work from being done as easily as they can make it easier."
Anyone who was bullied (not just teased, but systematically tormented) as a child instinctively knows this.
"just as the Web is making it easier for crowds to collaborate, the Web is also making it simple for mobs to crush free expression."
Again, anyone who has their psyche systematically crushed by their peers knows that one of the symptoms of the bullied is that they shut down -- stop speaking up, contributing or standing out for fear of drawing attention to themselves. It seems like the Web is not simply facilitating this, but making the age-old process a bit more honest. Instead of tormenting a person into self-negation, Web-based systems openly negate you. None of those hollow and self-serving (yet strangely persuasive to the unknowing) arguments that say, in essence "It was her choice not to talk for two years. I don't see how anyone could think it was my fault she stopped talking just because I whacked her upside the head every time she opened her mouth."
Anyone who was bullied (not just teased, but systematically tormented) as a child instinctively knows this.
"just as the Web is making it easier for crowds to collaborate, the Web is also making it simple for mobs to crush free expression."
Again, anyone who has their psyche systematically crushed by their peers knows that one of the symptoms of the bullied is that they shut down -- stop speaking up, contributing or standing out for fear of drawing attention to themselves. It seems like the Web is not simply facilitating this, but making the age-old process a bit more honest. Instead of tormenting a person into self-negation, Web-based systems openly negate you. None of those hollow and self-serving (yet strangely persuasive to the unknowing) arguments that say, in essence "It was her choice not to talk for two years. I don't see how anyone could think it was my fault she stopped talking just because I whacked her upside the head every time she opened her mouth."
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Bummer
Posted by: www.suekatz.com on May 2, 2008 3:44 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: www.suekatz.com on May 2, 2008 3:44 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks for this. Your helpful, eye-opening explanation of flagging explains how it potentially affects every blogger like myself. One small point: I'm not crazy about the use of the word "crowd." That seems to remove volition and responsibility from the individuals who are vandalizing/censoring another person's work. When they get together to do that, they're part of a "campaign" or "movement," surely. "Crowd" is like "mob" - it erases individual accountability.
Thanks again,
Sue
Thanks again,
Sue
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Current Legal Case Being Fought for Internet Freedom
Posted by: Chevaliere on May 2, 2008 3:57 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: Chevaliere on May 2, 2008 3:57 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Have a look here: Internet Free Speech Under Threat! Eric Pepin - Higher Balance Institute Sue QFG for 4.47 Million Over SOTT Forum Comments!
The attorneys for sott.net have, apparently, filed motions to strike according to this forum post here
..which is part of the actual forum discussion that is the object of the 4.7 million dollar lawsuit.
Well worth reading to see what kinds of gangs there are out there and what they can do to you. If nothing else, sott.net has had to spend a lot of money just to defend their right to discuss on a forum!
If they lose, we are all screwed!
The attorneys for sott.net have, apparently, filed motions to strike according to this forum post here
..which is part of the actual forum discussion that is the object of the 4.7 million dollar lawsuit.
Well worth reading to see what kinds of gangs there are out there and what they can do to you. If nothing else, sott.net has had to spend a lot of money just to defend their right to discuss on a forum!
If they lose, we are all screwed!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Craigslist "Crowds" Do the Same Thing on Rants & Raves
Posted by: terradea42 on May 2, 2008 5:14 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: terradea42 on May 2, 2008 5:14 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If I say something anti-business or anti-capitalist in the "Rants & Raves" section, my comment disappears within the day as being flagged as "inappropriate." But the pro-Bush and the racist crowd seem to enjoy unfettered access and exposure.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Errata
Posted by: marxalot on May 2, 2008 5:57 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: marxalot on May 2, 2008 5:57 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"The web makes it easy for cowards to collaborate."
There, I fixed that for you.
There, I fixed that for you.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: rrata
Posted by: Amphetameme
Comments are closed-
Why do we expect to publish for free?
Posted by: stilldreaming on May 2, 2008 1:57 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: stilldreaming on May 2, 2008 1:57 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
there's no free lunch. Google and others are not "the commons," .. and why do we expect Google to be in favor of free speech? They censored free speech for the communist Chinese dicators, like Yahoo did too, not caring that a political disenter went to jail.
The blogger who wants to do his/her own investigative reporting on Crappy City and self-publish on the web needs to pay the small fee required to have their own domain and install blogging software, available free in places.
Then, let's all be sure the Net remains "free" as in all that NetNeutrality stuff.
Paying a few pennies ($20/month or?) is not too much to ask so one is not under the whim of a big corporate owner.
The blogger who wants to do his/her own investigative reporting on Crappy City and self-publish on the web needs to pay the small fee required to have their own domain and install blogging software, available free in places.
Then, let's all be sure the Net remains "free" as in all that NetNeutrality stuff.
Paying a few pennies ($20/month or?) is not too much to ask so one is not under the whim of a big corporate owner.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Why do we expect to publish for free?
Posted by: stilldreaming
» No, no, you don't get it.
Posted by: KeepsonTickn
Comments are closed-
Our Right to make Asses of ourselves in Public
Posted by: Purple Girl on May 2, 2008 2:33 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: Purple Girl on May 2, 2008 2:33 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I love Free Speech- even when I disagree.
I truely love the public forum.
Such idiots like BillO & Rush offend me when ever i hear anyting about their thoughts on anything. But it gives me ammunition to combat them with in the village Square.
however when it is censorship because a group has targeted you (and you are not selling kiddee Porn) That is wrong. If the 'Religious Right' collectively targets a Gay Website that must be stopped! I don't go on to obvious websites I don't agree with to attack them so they should not be allowed. I control my internet like I do my TV- if I don't like it I change the 'channel'
I truely love the public forum.
Such idiots like BillO & Rush offend me when ever i hear anyting about their thoughts on anything. But it gives me ammunition to combat them with in the village Square.
however when it is censorship because a group has targeted you (and you are not selling kiddee Porn) That is wrong. If the 'Religious Right' collectively targets a Gay Website that must be stopped! I don't go on to obvious websites I don't agree with to attack them so they should not be allowed. I control my internet like I do my TV- if I don't like it I change the 'channel'
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Non-profit Search Engine Web Site (maybe?)
Posted by: halg on May 4, 2008 1:06 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: halg on May 4, 2008 1:06 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wonder if simply having an Internet search system run by a non-profit (read: non-corporate) might help solve the problem. (Note that I said "might help;" obviously, this is a complex problem.)
Content providers could still block content, but at least content that IS accessible could be discovered with an open, democratic search tool.
Only trouble is ... how to fund the non-profit. Hmmmm, maybe by other non-profits seeking a cheaper alternative for getting their voice heard?
Content providers could still block content, but at least content that IS accessible could be discovered with an open, democratic search tool.
Only trouble is ... how to fund the non-profit. Hmmmm, maybe by other non-profits seeking a cheaper alternative for getting their voice heard?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Ah, yes
Posted by: Philip Newton on May 4, 2008 4:42 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: Philip Newton on May 4, 2008 4:42 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Even here in Liberalville (perhaps especially so) the incensed, righteous protectors of free speech (as long as it agrees with theirs) go about trying to quash, shout down, flag, censor and whine their way into Lefto-fascist frenzies of First Amendmant abuse.
Remarkable how differing opinions bring out the cyber-Nazi in some people.
Whatever happened to reasoned discourse in the commons? Or even unreasonable discourse, but discourse, of some type?
Swallowed by a national pathology of narcissisim and intolerance.
Remarkable how differing opinions bring out the cyber-Nazi in some people.
Whatever happened to reasoned discourse in the commons? Or even unreasonable discourse, but discourse, of some type?
Swallowed by a national pathology of narcissisim and intolerance.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Censorship: Everybody Does It
Posted by: Elurby on May 6, 2008 5:16 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: Elurby on May 6, 2008 5:16 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
#######
#######
Censorship: Everybody Does It
http://foundersamerica67.blogspot.com/
#######
#######
#######
Censorship: Everybody Does It
http://foundersamerica67.blogspot.com/
#######
#######
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
PROGRESSIVE WIRE
Stop the Execution of an Innocent Man!
DNA testing could free Hank Skinner before Feb. 24 execution date.
Half-Naked Hot Chicks and Beer: The Sexist Guyland of the Super Bowl Beer Commercial
Can Obama and Dems Overcome the Right's Talk Radio Monopoly?
Why We're Addicted to Disaster Porn
