Cheesesailor77
Veteran
just to be clear, he said Amoral, not IMmoral, and I'd have to agree with him on that, not inherently good or bad.
shutting down the internet
- Thread starter brianluce
- Start date
just to be clear, he said Amoral, not IMmoral, and I'd have to agree with him on that, not inherently good or bad.
I know, I said "Amoral" too. Point still stands though, I'm saying if the internet empowers the individual and encourages participation in society then you could, I guess, give the internet a moral value. The internet can also be used for propaganda but I don't see that as the same since that's more of an exploitation and not a cause and effect.
Cheesesailor77
Veteran
sry, didn't mean to offend, just trying to be clear. I guess the thing I find positive about the internet is that of course it can be used for propaganda, but a single individual has just as much power to express his own side of the story as well.
karapetkov
Well-known member
The net is like the real world.
It all depends on what you think you wanna have or what you think it's OK to do?
If you want to take drugs, sell drugs, kill people - it's not OK - but you can do it anyway, and many don't get caught doing it.
How controllable is the real world?
The same with the net.
Obviously things like child porn are intolerable, but how far are we willing to go with "regulation"?
From one point on, it will be plain communism.
This is complicated matter.
It all depends on what you think you wanna have or what you think it's OK to do?
If you want to take drugs, sell drugs, kill people - it's not OK - but you can do it anyway, and many don't get caught doing it.
How controllable is the real world?
The same with the net.
Obviously things like child porn are intolerable, but how far are we willing to go with "regulation"?
From one point on, it will be plain communism.
This is complicated matter.
Cheesesailor77
Veteran
hmmm, i completely disagree with this.
OK, but explain how what Rupert Murdoch does for TV can be applied to "censoring" the Internet. How does a corporation censor the Internet?
(Besides, Rupert Murdoch (and whoever else) censors nothing. He may decide what he wants and doesn't want on his networks, but that's editorial choice and free speech.)
Anhar_Miah
Veteran
Indeed this is a very pivotal point, I would use a slighlty different word to interactive,
basically the other means are of "one to many" relationship i.e. broadcast, where as the Internet is inherently many to many relationship which makes it a "network" or also similar to a community (which is also a kind of network).
Other than that I still think Davids initial points are valid.
{PS Network theory is cool...}
adkimery
Veteran
By controlling the most popular website and portals they, large conglomerates, can control how easy it is for the population at large to to access information. IIRC most of the top 10 most popular internet sites are owned by the same 5-6 conglomerates that own the lions share of media outlets. When average people go online to catch up on the days events how many of them put in the effort to separate the wheat from the chaff of various independent news sources and how many of them just go to the web site of the news source (network, magazine, newspaper, etc.,) they use when they aren't at the computer?
Also, years ago Scientology used the DMCA to put the screws to Google to remove "anti-Scientology" web sites from Google searches. If web sites can't readily be found using a search engine, especially the most popular search engine, then it's almost like the web site doesn't exist.
-A
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
There is massive censoring and spin taking place in the media world that caters to the public and the internet could very well be owned by large monopolies one day (if even on a country by country basis). Once the corporations take over, that is where censoring and agenda come in.
The editorial and free speech choice is masked under the guise of NEWS HONESTY and INTEGRIY. many, many people think what they get is pure and unbiased.
I say NO CENSORING OF THE WWW !!!!!
It's the last WILD WEST we may ever see; until we get to space. :thumbsup:
karapetkov
Well-known member
Mark Harris
Pain in the ass
The subject of this thread is the answer to your question(though I think you are being intentionally thick to force people to back up their cases). Google and Microsoft were complicit in censoring what the Chinese see in search results. For instance, search results on google for tiananmen square or Taiwanese Independence.
These corporations used their technologies to censor what people saw. This is not a matter of what they want on their networks, like your case for Murdoch(which is questionable anyway). These are search results.
.
In what universe is that considered "thick"? :shocked: It's simple conversation.
They didn't just decide to do it on their own. They were directed to do so by the Chinese government or they would have been shut down themselves. You can argue, and I'd agree, that it was a bad move, but it's not exactly "corporate censorship" in the sense it's being thrown about here.
The only way it's "questionable" is if you bring monopolistic practices into play, and Murdoch doesn't have anything like that.
You could make more of a monopoly case for Google or Microsoft or large search engines (and was it really so hard to cite such examples?). But filtering content in and of itself falls under editorial policy. If harm can be shown because it's monopolistic, then that's another case.
However, our own P K Gillock shows that the Internet is a harder beast to tame than that. He set up his own search engine; anyone else can do the same by learning how.
In any case, calling me (or anyone else) "thick" is an indication that this thread has probably gone places it shouldn't have. So, if you want to continue this, PM me.
Cheesesailor77
Veteran
(Just woke up lol...)
Thanks Mark, yes, this is what I was trying to describe.
THIS I actually don't have a problem with. NEWSWEEK.com can put whatever they want on they're website, just as the neonazitimes.com can post whatever they feel like. And if newsweek is by far the more popular site, so be it. The point is that NEWSWEEK magazine is on display at every supermarket, news stand, and waiting room. It's available to everyone. On the internet the Neo Nazi Times gets the same opportunity to get heard.
Now I myself would skip the Neo Nazi Times, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be available to whoever wants to know more about it (with the exception of my children, who I as a parent have the right to censor whatever I want from [forgive my grammer])
China as a state is preventing it's people from learning about many of the horrible things they've done or learning more about attractive alternatives in the world. That to me destroys what the internet is. The ability to enlighten yourself, without boundaries, the Earth's collected knowledge at your fingertips.
To continue to use the Murdoch example: In 1993 Murdoch make a very lucrative deal to provide satellite television service into the HUGE new market of China. One of of the networks his service provided was the BBC, who it turns out had among other things, reported on the Tiananmen Square protests. China soon banned the use of satellite dishes. Murdoch then took the BBC of his service into China, and is still one of the largest satellite content providers into China.
I'm not against FOX News or CNN dictating what's on their network, I'm against the other network not being available at all.
Does this still not make sense?
Cheesesailor77
Veteran
Im pretty sure he meant it as a compliment, David. No ill will.
I think the thread's still civil, right? I'm just trying to get my message out lol
Mark Harris
Pain in the ass
I didn't mean anything bad. I just meant that it seemed that you were intentionally not getting it in order to force people to back up what they were putting out there. I was not calling you thick as an insult, but as a tactic
Sorry, I really did not mean anything bad by it.But as far as google and microsoft being shut down, you know they went there by choice. It's not like they were there and suddenly the Chinese government tried to put them out of business. They employed censorship TO MAKE MONEY, google's bullshit apologies notwithstanding. Period. They were not forced into anything and they would have gone on just as rich as they are now if they'd just refused to take part in that kind of absolutely disgusting behavior. Either way, it is very much "corporate censorship," even if it is on behalf of a government, which is scarier.
And for Murdoch, what makes your argument questionable is that corporations(esp those that control media) have a larger responsibility to the public than just putting whatever they want up, or withholding whatever they want. As for editorial policy, that only goes so far. It's the editorial policy of the Chinese Government to not allow people to read about Taiwanese independence. That don't make it right. Likewise, if a large news outlet decided to withhold or publish voting numbers in order to sway the outcome of an election, or even call an election early, that does NOT fall under "editorial policy."
And the point isn't that the internet is hard to tame. I am very glad it is as robust as it is. The point is, people are going to try to tame it anyway. And I would rather not depend on the good graces of the corporations to keep it free once they do.
Last edited:
Ah. Well, if he means I'm playing devil's advocate, then that's true to some extent.
But a LOT of what's being cited here as "corporate censorship" is actually the mandate of the Chinese government. Anhar above says the only thing he disagrees with me about is the many-to-many network aspect of the Internet, but in truth, we actually agree on that, and it's part of my point -- a corporation CAN'T effectively "censor" the Internet because there are far, far, far, far too many points of access which can be had cheaply. The best it can do is control its little piece of the incredibly gigantic picture.
But a LOT of what's being cited here as "corporate censorship" is actually the mandate of the Chinese government. Anhar above says the only thing he disagrees with me about is the many-to-many network aspect of the Internet, but in truth, we actually agree on that, and it's part of my point -- a corporation CAN'T effectively "censor" the Internet because there are far, far, far, far too many points of access which can be had cheaply. The best it can do is control its little piece of the incredibly gigantic picture.
Mark Harris
Pain in the ass
Right, but that is no different than it ever was. Sure, there are many cheap access points, but is 99% of the people get their info from google, it's irrelevant. Just like in the past, anyone could get a Ham radio and broadcast and anyone was free to listen in. But most people just turned on their TVs.
karapetkov
Well-known member
Anhar_Miah
Veteran
Some excellent points here, just like to add just in case its may not have been clear earlier,
The Internet Censorship is not totally 100% as most probably already guessed , many loopholes exist:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intern...Republic_of_China#Efforts_at_breaking_through
http://mediavidea.blogspot.com/2006/11/bypassing-internet-censorship-roundup.html
and probably many more...
The Internet Censorship is not totally 100% as most probably already guessed , many loopholes exist:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intern...Republic_of_China#Efforts_at_breaking_through
http://mediavidea.blogspot.com/2006/11/bypassing-internet-censorship-roundup.html
and probably many more...
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
Corporate Censorship .........
And who is the biggest corporation of them all ?
Ironic isn't it ?
And who is the biggest corporation of them all ?
Ironic isn't it ?