Posts: 6939/7006
(20-Jan-2012 at 05:40) ![]() |
Originally Posted by DHoffryn:
Except for the fact that you are not unless you lie directly and even then it happens very rarely.
Quote:
You are aware that not everything on the internet is an anoymous source right?
If, as you say, you are going to ignore the first site, how is having there better than not having it there?
Quote:
Yeah sure that would work so brilliantly.
Originally Posted by filcher:
So what is misinformation?
People really do worship gods and make prophecies and claim to see ghosts. Discussing those it not lies or misinformation. Inventing a witness would be.
Quote:
Why would you want to take the word of a random person on the street as fact anyways?
Originally Posted by Götterdämmerung :
You're making excuses for stupidity.
Quote:
So the problem really isn't the internet then, it's idiocy.
"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." But let it be considered that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak of self- interest. |
||
|
Posts: 2815/2825
(20-Jan-2012 at 08:09) ![]() |
Re: Internet Censorship
It happens rarely because they lie rarely because they are not stupid enough to risk prosecution for little gain.
Quote:
So when the high school kid signs off as Proffessor Stanley Fish you believe it? Okay... I understand you now...
If, as you say, you are going to ignore the first site, how is having there better than not having it there?
Quote:
As you have observed yourself, it works for print. And advertising. And marketing. Etc.
Hey man that was not intended towards you. Your the original. You have your own style and that's fine. You own it in your own way. But when people try to copy you like VoR tries to do right now it just doesn't work The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common; they don't alter their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit the views |
||
|
Posts: 3977/3983
(20-Jan-2012 at 19:43) ![]() |
Re: Internet Censorship
So when the high school kid signs off as Proffessor Stanley Fish you believe it? Okay... I understand you now...
Quote:
If, as you say, you are going to ignore the first site, how is having there better than not having it there?
Quote:
As you have observed yourself, it works for print. And advertising. And marketing. Etc.
Quote:
Factually inaccurate. They can draw any conclusion they like from the facts.
Quote:
People really do worship gods and make prophecies and claim to see ghosts. Discussing those it not lies or misinformation. Inventing a witness would be.
Quote:
Why would you want to give him a broadcast medium and pretend he is an expert?
Quote:
If I am looking for information on surgery, I am effectively stupid and so are you, as we are not surgeons.
Quote:
The problem is allowing the Internet to be a free-for-all for idiots. I keep asking how and idiot infested Internet is better than one free of idiots, and nobody is answering...
The internet was founded by tax payer support; the citizens thus have a right to use it as a means of commentary, social interaction, games play or criticism on policies. Restricting the ability to be wrong or have a divergent opinion will only create a lack of critical appraisal of controversial issues. I believe that our knowledge is always expanding, and much that we believed true fifty years ago, has been found either to be wrong, or only partially accurate. It is far better to allow sites that provide both sides of an argument than limiting discussion to only that we perceive as true. I think that providing clearer web addresses to the organizations that do research or provide factual information would be a splendid idea and make it easier to differentiate between opinion blogs and actually research and policy centers. “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.” |
||
|
Posts: 1556/1637
(20-Jan-2012 at 23:08) |
Re: Internet Censorship
If I am looking for information on surgery, I am effectively stupid and so are you, as we are not surgeons.
If you want information on surgery, go to the surgeon school website and buy some of their material. Only a moron would go elsewhere.
Quote:
I keep asking how and idiot infested Internet is better than one free of idiots, and nobody is answering...
|
||
|
Posts: 6943/7006
(21-Jan-2012 at 03:52) ![]() |
Originally Posted by filcher:
If you are that gullible I can see the problem; the secret is to go to sites that the person/ organization providing commentary is actually known. It is not hard to find acceptable sites to read.
Quote:
It allows the person a chance to express his thoughts. You may not consider it necessary for people of all walks of life, education, and backgrounds to have a voice, but some people think it is important for themselves to have a voice.
I know you are doing your best to muddy the issue, but this is simple a quality-of-information issue. The internet as it stands is the only source of information that give free reign to misinformation, and nobody has given a good reason why that is good thing.
Quote:
Not sure it does though. News media can still 'quote' a person without factual commentary as to what is quoted.
The difference is that in the print media it has to be made clear that it is a quote, and the the source of the quote give - even if it just 'a source within the organisation' or similar. On the internet, there is no such regulation. There is a big difference between "Mr Spanner, Head of Safety, said that all safety mechanisms were working properly." (regulated print) and "all the safety mechanisms were working properly" (unregulated internet).
Quote:
Which in some cases leads to a question of what facts do we use when both sides have statistical evidences, or both sides are controversial amongst scientists or researchers, etc.
Quote:
So these you accept with no factual evidences at all. Why not place civilian bloggers in the same category?
What is not okay is inventing witnesses to ghosts and faking photographs of them, which would not get into print but would be fine on the internet, and you apparently approve of this...
Quote:
even most newspapers have a letters section for. If you are not able to understand the difference that is your problem.
Quote:
I am not answering because IMO it is a poor question. You are making the assumption that you are not an idiot but others are.
Once again - why is allowing such crappy information a good idea? Why do you like crappy information so much?
Quote:
The internet was founded by tax payer support
Quote:
Restricting the ability to be wrong or have a divergent opinion will only create a lack of critical appraisal of controversial issues.
"They can draw any conclusion they like from the facts."
Originally Posted by Gotterdammerung:
If you want information on surgery, go to the surgeon school website and buy some of their material.
Quote:
Don't look at me, I've already answered that.
Originally Posted by DHoffryn:
Don't worry I know that some people with mental disorders can't recognize sarcasm
![]() "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." But let it be considered that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak of self- interest. |
||
|
Posts: 3978/3983
(21-Jan-2012 at 05:34) ![]() |
Quote:
In what way is that better than having *all* sites being acceptable to read? Would you go to a reference library in which only 10 books where reliable? Would you buy an encyclopaedia that was 90% wrong?
Quote:
I know you are doing your best to muddy the issue, but this is simple a quality-of-information issue. The internet as it stands is the only source of information that give free reign to misinformation, and nobody has given a good reason why that is good thing.
To claims the internet should be only for information of a factual nature I can only say; Why? Who ever said that was what it is? “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.” |
||
|
Posts: 6946/7006
(21-Jan-2012 at 05:48) ![]() |
Quote:
I prefer a library where not only do you have the reference texts you can read, but also fiction, commentary, and humor that is essential to a culture.
Quote:
I am capable enough to find acceptable information, old enough to read what I want and intelligent enough to believe based on the information available.
Quote:
It is not a quality of information issue, it is a free speech issue.
What were you saying about being able to judge quality of information? "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." But let it be considered that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak of self- interest. |
||
|
Posts: 1558/1637
(21-Jan-2012 at 07:51) |
Re: Internet Censorship
Give me a couple of hours... I will have the Voice of Reason School of Surgery online shortly.
You are forgetting that the internet is a tool. When you want to learn about something that is a trade, undoubtably you still need the real world experience to learn it.
Quote:
Darwinism is a cop-out, not an answer, but at least you are trying.
*shakes screen violently* Last edited by Gotterdammerung, 21-Jan-2012 at 07:53. |
||
|
Posts: 6949/7006
(21-Jan-2012 at 08:06) ![]() |
Be careful with that screen, Eugene...
A physical address is easy! "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." But let it be considered that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak of self- interest. |
||
|
Posts: 3404/3642
(21-Jan-2012 at 09:37) ![]() |
Re: Internet Censorship
Do you really believe you are an authority in every field? If you are, you are a remarkable individual. If not, then - like the rest of us - you are *not* capable of judging quality of information outside your field of specialisation.
It may appear like that if you can't distinguish between freedom of speech and freedom to misinform. The various special interest groups, political groups, and other sundry ideologues try to wrap up freedom to misinform as 'freedom of speech', so they can carry on misinforming, and you illustrate how effective they are in that endeavour. Aside from that there's another little issue; if you censor the internet, few people will use it anymore. When not enough people are going to bother using it, not enough people are going to bother putting information on it. So now to your original point, why is it a good thing? Because even though there's probably more than 10,000 unreliable sites for every 1 reliable site, most reliable sites wouldn't be available to the public without the 10,000 bad ones. If you want reliable information, you can already go to a library. It's unnecessary to fuck with the internet to have something else people will only go to when they absolutely need it. Need be, someone can go and try to create a more reliable version of wikipedia instead of complaining that the internet is too unreliable.
Quote:
What were you saying about being able to judge quality of information?
Quote:
We have one united UN who manage to regulate other international issues such as maritime and aviation law. They could handle the internet too.
Last edited by Greeney, 21-Jan-2012 at 09:44. |
||
|
Posts: 3979/3983
(21-Jan-2012 at 10:24) ![]() |
Quote:
!f it has fiction, it is not a *reference* library. By definition.
Quote:
Do you really believe you are an authority in every field? If you are, you are a remarkable individual. If not, then - like the rest of us - you are *not* capable of judging quality of information outside your field of specialisation.
Thinking that any random website will help you be a surgeon is ridiculous; thinking that they can let you understand how certain parts of the human body operate is not ridiculous.
Quote:
It may appear like that if you can't distinguish between freedom of speech and freedom to misinform. The various special interest groups, political groups, and other sundry ideologues try to wrap up freedom to misinform as 'freedom of speech', so they can carry on misinforming, and you illustrate how effective they are in that endeavour.
The internet is the same; bloggers support the internet by paying for a place to put their thoughts and opinions. As long as they do not break the laws I can see no reason to make them stop. If they are using other peoples identities then they are guilty of identity theft, and can probably be charged. If you are talking about providing a means of sorting the internet into sectors containing research and expert information, news sites and reports, and bloggers and gaming sites, then I would think that would be great. Talking about trying to restrict what people say is not only pointless but self defeating. “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.” |
||
|
Posts: 6951/7006
(21-Jan-2012 at 11:29) ![]() |
Originally Posted by Greeney:
Please define your notion of freedom of speech VoR.
What have you people got against honesty? Since when did 'freedom to spread lies' become a human right?
Quote:
if you censor the internet, few people will use it anymore.
I have never heard anyone saying "I am sick of all this reliable information on the internet".
Quote:
Because even though there's probably more than 10,000 unreliable sites for every 1 reliable site, most reliable sites wouldn't be available to the public without the 10,000 bad ones.
Quote:
It's unnecessary to fuck with the internet to have something else people will only go to when they absolutely need it.
Quote:
Most of us do learn to tell the difference between sites that present reliable or unreliable information.
Now, tell me again: how is that a good thing?
Originally Posted by filcher:
Still the internet is not a reference library but a social tool.
Quote:
Blogger pay to have the privilege of posting their thoughts.
Quote:
As for surgery techniques; If you do not know how to perform the operation, and need to conduct a google search for opening slices, you are likely over your head already.
Quote:
I do have to have some faith that they are posting reliable information
I thought you said you you were "... intelligent enough to believe based on the information available", but now you say it is a matter of faith... The latter is probably more true than imagining you are some omniscient being that is expert in every field. Most of us take it on faith outside our own specialisations, and that is the whole point: how is an internet where most of the information can *not* be taken on faith better than one where it can? I am still waiting for an answer to that...
Quote:
they are able to insert 'anonymous official says' and they can print what they want, without ever providing evidence there was an anonymous official
Quote:
I can pay to print up pamphlets holding all kinds of misinformation and lies, but as long as I don't break libel or defamation or hate laws, i am not arrested or charged.
Quote:
As long as they do not break the laws I can see no reason to make them stop.
"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." But let it be considered that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak of self- interest. |
||
|
Posts: 3406/3642
(21-Jan-2012 at 21:10) ![]() |
Re: Internet Censorship
What have you people got against honesty? Since when did 'freedom to spread lies' become a human right?
Nobody has anything against honesty; we don't have a problem with people posting facts on the internet, we don't mind having to deal with people who post information on the internet. You are the one with an interest on censoring people. You're the only one who has a problem with people posting freely on the internet. You're the only one that is against something here.
Quote:
So what is so good about unreliable information and lies? Why do you like it so much? I still haven't seen anyone explain this.
|
||
|
Posts: 6952/7006
(22-Jan-2012 at 04:38) ![]() |
Quote:
we don't have a problem with people posting facts on the internet,
Quote:
we don't mind having to deal with people who post information on the internet.
Quote:
You are the one with an interest on censoring people.
What where you saying about putting words peoples mouths?
Quote:
Yes, because I don't mind it I therefore like it so much. Brilliant use of logic.
Predictably enough you *still* haven't explained why allowing lies and misinformation is so good for the internet. You are never going to answer that. "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." But let it be considered that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak of self- interest. |
||
|
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Internet Blows CIA Covers | Invictus2001 | Respectable General Discussions | 14 | 13-Mar-2006 15:11 |
Internet disgrace | tylerrrrr | Respectable General Discussions | 12 | 10-Mar-2006 16:49 |
Korean Internet Users Launch Hacking Attacks on ........... | Crew | Respectable General Discussions | 18 | 26-Jun-2004 16:37 |
Control over Internet. | Bernel | Respectable General Discussions | 22 | 14-Apr-2004 16:45 |
Are you an internet Junky? | Brentlysnow | The Lunatic Asylum | 9 | 22-Jan-2004 04:54 |