Censorship and the elites and the rest of us. What is your take on this?

VaughanJB said:
Recent UK riots.

The internet, and everything is brings, is a prime cause of accelerated disenchantment, and the dissemination of misinformation. When people are reacting to half-assed, if not incorrect, information, then it's not purely emotional, it's intellectual.

The internet has brought about huge change in our societies.

The internet allows minorities to act as though they're majorities. As soon as you find your place of belonging, it feels more of a "norm". There is nothing inherently wrong with the internet, but it's showing the cracks in our societies in stark relief. Far too many people don't think things through, they simply go with emotion.
Click to expand...
I don't understand why you blame the internet for these problems. I blame politicians and stupidity 100%.
 

dilettante said:
This man connects the dots between censorship and the current violence in the UK. People were muzzled so the neoliberals could pave over society. It doesn't help that they promote a philosophy of self-denigration and nihilism. Eventually pressure built up until pushback finally burst through.

Click to expand...

This is a fail in the second sentence. "Muzzled so the neoliberals could pave over society". I mean, seriously. It's just throwing in a buzz word for effect, it means very little. Stop trying to justify the extremism.
 
Murrmurr said:
I don't understand why you blame the internet for these problems. I blame politicians and stupidity 100%.
Click to expand...

Facilitation. No rules. The idea that minority opinions have an equal level of relevance as majority views. Encryption that protect those looking to destroy our ways of life. The internet amplifies our frailties.

Even simple stuff. Would so many suffer fraud without the net? Would hate be able to access the vulnerable without it? Would misinformation sit side-by-side with the truth?

This is not a "it's not the gun that kills people, it's the people" thing. The net is largely unregulated, and that has brought both good and bad. Kids can access pornography at whatever age they are. They can be radicalized via Social Media. The internet has had profound effects on our societies, and no-one is accountable.
 

VaughanJB said:
Facilitation. No rules. The idea that minority opinions have an equal level of relevance as majority views. Encryption that protect those looking to destroy our ways of life. The internet amplifies our frailties.

Even simple stuff. Would so many suffer fraud without the net? Would hate be able to access the vulnerable without it? Would misinformation sit side-by-side with the truth?

This is not a "it's not the gun that kills people, it's the people" thing. The net is largely unregulated, and that has brought both good and bad. Kids can access pornography at whatever age they are. They can be radicalized via Social Media. The internet has had profound effects on our societies, and no-one is accountable.
Click to expand...
What would you like to see happen? Police the internet? Limited access? Do away with it entirely? Giving a government agency control?

These are the solutions that communist and socialist countries have come up with. Do you see the dangers in that?

Maybe better education would help. That's the solution I'd like to see.
 
Murrmurr said:
What would you like to see happen? Police the internet? Limited access? Do away with it entirely? Giving a government agency control?

These are the solutions that communist and socialist countries have come up with. Do you see the dangers in that?

Maybe better education would help. That's the solution I'd like to see.
Click to expand...

I believe regulation of the internet is inevitable. That's aside from what I think should happen.

Take counterfeit goods. They're available on both Amazon and Ebay. Both sites say they are trying to combat it, but the reality is, they're not really putting in much effort. Why? Because the revenue is in clicks. Commission is a commission, and annual growth numbers simply must be met. There is nothing in it for Ebay to go after counterfeiters.

Take copyright, which is now in tatters. Look at the devastation brought upon the music business. Look at what is happening in art circles right now, with custom artists being overcome with AI replacements.

Look at fraud with seniors, the relationship scams, the bank frauds, and so on. They're too numerous to mention.

I could go on, but honestly my own personal view is that it all leads to inevitable laws and control. Rioters in the UK were using Social Media to direct attacks, telling people where the police were thin, and so on. Can they really go unmentioned? What is the solution, other than using the same tech to beat them at their game? But of course, people will then talk about how "orwellien" it's gotten.

Holding each site responsible for what goes on there would help. Hold Social Media providers responsible for what goes on in their platform, then see the rats leave the sinking ship.

Education is part of the answer, but to be honest, I've given up on a lot of people. They claim to be patriots whilst hating everything fundamental about a country, they claim to have "done my own research" which amounts to a trip to Telegram. It seems hopeless......
 
Around here we have a Sir Francis Drake Drive, a major thoroughfare. Lots of homes and businesses. Few years ago someone discovered that Drake, in addition to being an explorer, had at one time transported slaves. Yikes! Gotta change the name of that street! But then the residents and business owners got wind of the pain in the arse that would mean if their addresses had to be changed, so they settled for tearing down his statue.
 
VaughanJB said:
I believe regulation of the internet is inevitable. That's aside from what I think should happen.
Click to expand...
I believe that's dangerous ground. There's no doubt in my mind that a myriad of people with power are itching to "regulate" the internet. How much honesty, integrity, or even patriotism do you suppose any of them possess?

I'm thinking very little to none. And you and your security, safety, and well-being are not on their list of concerns.
 
Murrmurr said:
I believe that's dangerous ground. There's no doubt in my mind that a myriad of people with power are itching to "regulate" the internet. How much honesty, integrity, or even patriotism do you suppose any of them possess?

I'm thinking very little to none. And you and your security, safety, and well-being are not on their list of concerns.
Click to expand...

I think it is telling of the times that you think regulation is "dangerous grounds", but the people who misuse the internet are of lesser concern. They're "itching" to regulate the internet because of the harm caused. The harm is incontrovertible. Do I trust those elected, or do I trust those attacking the fundamentals of our society?

I do not share your distrust of all authorities. I know that's the seed that has been sewn into our society. However, I also know that the people using the internet for nefarious acts are far more of a danger to me than a democratically elected government. These same people have been able to undermine our society by planting the seeds of distrust. It's all part of the plan to sow disarray. IMO. It goes on from government to anything on the left, and so on. Go with that, and they win.

There are good people in public service. There are bad, and they should be identified and dealt with. But at the end of the day, our representatives are there for us, and they try to do good.

Do you have the same opinion of those on the left in government, and those on the right?
 
Last edited:
dilettante said:
No, I suggest that you stop defending the extremism. People just want it to end. Gaslighting doesn't make your case.
Click to expand...

I'm neither gaslighting, nor defending extremism. Increasingly your posts to me sound like desperate attempts to counter what I've written. I don't get it, personally. That you and I disagree on most everything is given, but we ought to be able to go beyond such things.
 
VaughanJB said:
I think it is telling of the times that you think regulation is "dangerous grounds", but the people who misuse the internet are of lesser concern. They're "itching" to regulate the internet because of the harm caused. The harm is incontrovertible. Do I trust those elected, or do I trust those attacking the fundamentals of our society?
Click to expand...
No. The powerful people I'm talking about are itching to control the information available to everyone who uses the internet and replace it with information they want you to know.
VaughanJB said:
I do not share your distrust of all authorities. I know that's the seed that has been sewn into our society. However, I also know that the people using the internet for nefarious acts are far more of a danger to me than a democratically elected government. These same people have been able to undermine our society by planting the seeds of distrust. It's all part of the plan to sow disarray. IMO. It goes on from government to anything on the left, and so on. Go with that, and they win.
Click to expand...
Time and time again, various authorities during various eras have proven they are not trustworthy. Are you kidding me? Hitler converted an entire nation of people...and without the internet. That's just one example.
VaughanJB said:
There are good people in public service. There are bad, and they should be identified and dealt with. But at the end of the day, our representatives are there for us, and they try to do good.
Click to expand...
Some civil servants do indeed want to do good. And the bad ones do all they can to stop them if their good works get in the way of the greed for more power and money. So, yes, we should all do our best to research who we vote for. The internet is a good resource for that.
 
Murrmurr said:
No. The powerful people I'm talking about are itching to control the information available to everyone who uses the internet and replace it with information they want you to know.
Click to expand...

So, who are they? Name and shame.

Murrmurr said:
Time and time again, various authorities during various eras have proven they are not trustworthy. Are you kidding me? Hitler converted an entire nation of people...and without the internet. That's just one example.
Click to expand...

No, not kidding. I believe in the democratic process. I believe that for the most part, the institutions that have made our countries what they are remain focused. If not, they'd of taken complete control a long time ago. I believe without democracy, we're sunk. I know it's fashionable today to call any result that goes against personal belief as "corrupt", but that's just another hissy fit for people who should know better.

Murrmurr said:
Some civil servants do indeed want to do good. And the bad ones do all they can to stop them if their good works get in the way of the greed for more power and money. So, yes, we should all do our best to research who we vote for. The internet is a good resource for that.
Click to expand...

The internet is a method, but sadly, not a good measure. Algorithms are in place to access what you like (to keep you clicking). This resists true research, and guides you not to knowledge, but to self-interest. Social Media itself is designed based on psychological triggers, rather than any truth or desire to be useful. I've been part of these design sessions, and they have little to do with actual content. Let alone philosophy.

It goes way beyond targeted advertising, and into news and entertainment. Some of those influences are foreign. Which is why we see these tools used to influence elections in our countries.

The main propulsion of the internet is to make money and to assume as little responsibility as possible. Beyond that, enemy states are using it to manipulate the message to influence action. It is well known that Russia influenced the last election in the US. Yet we don't trust the result. So who are we trusting, the Russians? The Chinese?

Just for clarity, do you believe the left? The right? Or neither?
 
Last edited:
VaughanJB said:
So, who are they? Name and shame.



No, not kidding. I believe in the democratic process. I believe that for the most part, the institutions that have made our countries what they are remain focused. If not, they'd of taken complete control a long time ago. I believe without democracy, we're sunk. I know it's fashionable today to call any result that goes against personal belief as "corrupt", but that's just another hissy fit for people who should know better.
Click to expand...
You don't seem to realize when we're on the same page. And when that happens it makes me think you're arguing for the sake of arguing.
VaughanJB said:
The internet is a method, but sadly, not a good measure. Algorithms are in place to access what you like (to keep you clicking). This resists true research, and guides you not to knowledge, but to self-interest. Social Media itself is designed based on psychological triggers, rather than any truth or desire to be useful. I've been part of these design sessions, and they have little to do with actual content. Let alone philosophy.

It goes way beyond targeted advertising, and into news and entertainment. Some of those influences are foreign. Which is why we see these tools used to influence elections in our countries.

The main propulsion of the internet is to make money and to assume as little responsibility as possible. Beyond that, enemy states are using it to manipulate the message to influence action. It is well known that Russia influenced the last election in the US. Yet we don't trust the result. So who are we trusting, the Russians? The Chinese?
Click to expand...
None of that is what the internet is. True, corporations make money via many internet platforms, primarily social and entertainment platforms, and some retail websites as well. There is way more to the internet than that.
VaughanJB said:
Just for clarity, do you believe the left? The right? Or neither?
Click to expand...
Why do you need that clarity? What difference will it make?


Bottom line; I still contend that problems we're seeing today are rooted in politics and stupidity, not the internet.
 
Murrmurr said:
You don't seem to realize when we're on the same page. And when that happens it makes me think you're arguing for the sake of arguing.
Click to expand...

Never, what would be the point? Perhaps you're not being clear?

Murrmurr said:
None of that is what the internet is. True, corporations make money via many internet platforms, primarily social and entertainment platforms, and some retail websites as well. There is way more to the internet than that.
Click to expand...

And what would that be? We're here because money can be made. Money or influence. We all pay for internet access. You might have a point if internet access were free, but it's not.

Murrmurr said:
Why do you need that clarity? What difference will it make?
Click to expand...

Frankly, because the right wing hating on everything has become cliche, and a meme. Those on the right do not seem able to accept democracy and that in every election there are both winners and losers. Instead, they'd rather burn the whole thing to the ground. Is there a reason you (seemingly) don't want to say?

Murrmurr said:
Bottom line; I still contend that problems we're seeing today are rooted in politics and stupidity, not the internet.
Click to expand...

Facilitated by the internet. Facilitated by the algorithms. Facilitated by the supposed anonymity. The internet is run by, and for, corporate interest. Which is why they don't want to be responsible for counterfeits, etc. The internet is not neutral. It has not been designed to be neutral. To drive growth, it relies on division.
 
VaughanJB said:
Frankly, because the right wing hating on everything has become cliche, and a meme. Those on the right do not seem able to accept democracy and that in every election there are both winners and losers. Instead, they'd rather burn the whole thing to the ground. Is there a reason you (seemingly) don't want to say?
Click to expand...
Yes. It's because I'm pretty sure that telling you I'm one or the other would influence how much credence you are willing to give my opinions, and I'd prefer you take them at face-value.
VaughanJB said:
Facilitated by the internet. Facilitated by the algorithms. Facilitated by the supposed anonymity. The internet is run by, and for, corporate interest. Which is why they don't want to be responsible for counterfeits, etc. The internet is not neutral. It has not been designed to be neutral. To drive growth, it relies on division.
Click to expand...
Facilitated by stupidity.

Corporations do not run the internet. They utilize it. They advertise on it. They invest in some components of it. They put websites on it, something you or I can do as well, but corporations do not "run" the internet any more than you or I do.
 
againstthegrain said:
You can have all the opinions you want, but not your own set of facts.

Wiki - "After two years of imprisonment, Davis was released at Richmond on May 13, 1867, on bail of $100,000 (~$1.79 million in 2023), which was posted by prominent citizens including Horace Greeley, Cornelius Vanderbilt and Gerrit Smith.[291] Davis and Varina went to Montreal, Quebec, to join their children who had been sent there while he was in prison, and they moved to Lennoxville, Quebec.[292] Davis remained under indictment until after Johnson's proclamation on Christmas 1868 granting amnesty and pardon to all participants in the rebellion.[293] Davis's case never went to trial. In February 1869, Attorney General William Evarts informed the court that the federal government declared it was no longer prosecuting the charges against him.[294]"
Click to expand...

Lincoln also ordered the arrest of the entire Maryland Legislature to make sure they did not succeed from the Union, which was debated by them. After the acts to repeal the ratification of the Constitution by the states, Succession, a new Government was formed. If the South was guilty of Treason against the North, why wasn't the North guilty of Treason against the South?
 
ohioboy said:
Lincoln also ordered the arrest of the entire Maryland Legislature to make sure they did not succeed from the Union, which was debated by them. After the acts to repeal the ratification of the Constitution by the states, Succession, a new Government was formed. If the South was guilty of Treason against the North, why wasn't the North guilty of Treason against the South?
Click to expand...
Succession???

You can figure that one out on your own, counselor.
 
OneEyedDiva said:
I think hate speech that promotes violence should be censored. I think that online bullying should be censored. That has led to suicides in the younger generation. IMO some very rich people care about poor people and they may do charitable things to help (sometimes very quietly) but I don't think a huge percentage do. I couldn't believe it years ago when I read that Warren Buffet donated to Bill Gates (and I don't think it was something that would benefit people). Doesn't Gates have enough of his own money?!
Click to expand...

Bill Gates ex wife, Melinda French Gates is using her billions to fight poverty, disease and inequity around the world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top