[Gotterdammerung]

Originally Posted by DHoffryn:

P.S Are you trying to do a Gotter imression? Before you were always a weasel but at least some of your arguments had at least a resemblance of logic. Now you seem to be floating in some kind of a weird utopia like land

How dare you compare VoR to me, Hoffy.

That's the ultimate insult. I thought you'd save that shit for the street mano a mano. But I was wrong. So, so wrong.

I am disappointed in you.

[Voice of Reason]

Originally Posted by DHoffryn:

Except for the fact that you are not unless you lie directly and even then it happens very rarely.

It happens rarely because they lie rarely because they are not stupid enough to risk prosecution for little gain.

Quote:

You are aware that not everything on the internet is an anoymous source right?

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:

Yeah sure that would work so brilliantly.

As you have observed yourself, it works for print. And advertising. And marketing. Etc.

Originally Posted by filcher:

So what is misinformation?

Factually inaccurate. They can draw any conclusion they like from the facts.

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?

Why would you want to give him a broadcast medium and pretend he is an expert?

Originally Posted by Götterdämmerung :

You're making excuses for stupidity.

If I am looking for information on surgery, I am effectively stupid and so are you, as we are not surgeons.

Quote:

So the problem really isn't the internet then, it's idiocy.

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...

[DHoffryn]

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason:

It happens rarely because they lie rarely because they are not stupid enough to risk prosecution for little gain.

That's b.s It happens ALL the time. Especially with hot topics. You get a thouand little experts each claiming with flowerly words they know what they are talking about.

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?

Are you just talking gibberish now because your experiment at being random and nonsensical turned out to be less then spectacular?

Quote:

As you have observed yourself, it works for print. And advertising. And marketing. Etc.

That was sarcasm. Don't worry I know that some people with mental disorders can't recognize sarcasm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gotterdammerung:

How dare you compare VoR to me, Hoffy.

That's the ultimate insult. I thought you'd save that shit for the street mano a mano. But I was wrong. So, so wrong.

I am disappointed in you.

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

[filcher]

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason:

So when the high school kid signs off as Proffessor Stanley Fish you believe it? Okay... I understand you now...

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:

If, as you say, you are going to ignore the first site, how is having there better than not having it there?

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. It really is not that hard to find acceptable information on the internet if you search properly. It really is not that hard to find reputable commentary either.

Quote:

As you have observed yourself, it works for print. And advertising. And marketing. Etc.

Not sure it does though. News media can still 'quote' a person without factual commentary as to what is quoted. They can also use "informed sources" "undisclosed advisor" etc when they write articles to get around the problem of misdirection and misinformation.

Quote:

Factually inaccurate. They can draw any conclusion they like from the facts.

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:

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.

So these you accept with no factual evidences at all. Why not place civilian bloggers in the same category?

Quote:

Why would you want to give him a broadcast medium and pretend he is an expert?

Allowing a person to have a blog, and thinking he is an expert is worlds apart VoR. even most newspapers have a letters section for. If you are not able to understand the difference that is your problem.

Quote:

If I am looking for information on surgery, I am effectively stupid and so are you, as we are not surgeons.

But we could be facing surgery, and desire to know about the procedure. We could be interested in human anatomy. We could be looking up human surgery to dissect the body we have on the kitchen table.

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...

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.

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.

[Gotterdammerung]

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason:

If I am looking for information on surgery, I am effectively stupid and so are you, as we are not surgeons.

Yes, indeed. But surgery is a trade, i.e. you have to learn it in the field.

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...

Don't look at me, I've already answered that.

[Voice of Reason]

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.

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:

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.

They can go to their local bar and express their thoughts. "I wanna blabber" is not a good reason to allow idiots to broadcast themselves as a source of information.

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.

A quote is a fact, assuming that X really did say it.

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.

That is no problem. Present the mainstream view, then the opposing crank view. In many countries, print media has to do that by regulation. The same is not true of the internet.

Quote:

So these you accept with no factual evidences at all. Why not place civilian bloggers in the same category?

Nostradamus prophesied. That is a fact. People say they see ghosts. That is a fact. If somebody wants to write a book arguing that ghosts are real because a whole bunch of folk have seen them, that is okay.

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.

Yep. A letters page that prints letters approved by the editorial staff after they have been vetted for factual accuracy. If you can't 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.

You are not answering because you can't, and I *know* there are a lot of idiots on the internet posing as information sources. I can point you to endless sites for language learners, grammar, writing, literary criticism, etc. claiming to be authorities on the subject (including one supposedly written by someone with a PhD...) that are factually wrong.

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

So were libraries, but they don't fill their shelves with lies and misinformation written by random school-kids.

Quote:

Restricting the ability to be wrong or have a divergent opinion will only create a lack of critical appraisal of controversial issues.

Stop trying to muddy the waters. From my previous post just a little way down the page...

"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.

Give me a couple of hours... I will have the Voice of Reason School of Surgery online shortly.

Quote:

Don't look at me, I've already answered that.

Darwinism is a cop-out, not an answer, but at least you are trying.

Originally Posted by DHoffryn:

Don't worry I know that some people with mental disorders can't recognize sarcasm

Sore losers who start throwing insults around make me laugh. Can you think of another one?

[filcher]

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?

I would not go to that library because it would be a cold and empty place. 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. 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:

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.

I am not trying to muddy the water. It is not a quality of information issue, it is a free speech issue.I can recall no law that says a person does not have the right to voice their opinions as long as they respect others privacy and do not force others to listen to them and do not break defamation, libel or hate laws.

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?

[Voice of Reason]

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.

!f it has fiction, it is not a *reference* library. By definition.

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.

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.

Quote:

It is not a quality of information issue, it is a free speech issue.

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.

What were you saying about being able to judge quality of information?

[Gotterdammerung]

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason:

Give me a couple of hours... I will have the Voice of Reason School of Surgery online shortly.

Great, then you will post your address and we can make a meeting and discuss it from there.

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.

But that's the way I look at the world!

*shakes screen violently*

[Voice of Reason]

Be careful with that screen, Eugene...

A physical address is easy!

[Greeney]

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason:

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.

Please define your notion of freedom of speech VoR. Most humans aren't interested in only being able to open their mouth, or posting on the internet, if they would have to prove it's true beyond a reasonable doubt.

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?

Most of us do learn to tell the difference between sites that present reliable or unreliable information. Maybe you still have difficulty, but its really not hard to spot the websites where the administrator only knows a bare minimum and hasn't taken the time to do any research. Additionally, you have search engines like google (which pretty much everyone uses now) that has pretty good policies in place to make it more likely you'll get the most reliable response at the top of your searches.

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.

I'd say lol, but it wouldn't be factual. I wasn't actually laughing out loud.

[filcher]

Quote:

!f it has fiction, it is not a *reference* library. By definition.

Likely a busy place. Still the internet is not a reference library but a social tool. Blogger pay to have the privilege of posting their thoughts. You do not have to pay to access them. Consider yourself privileged that those bloggers that do post well thought out opinions are prepared to share them. 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:

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.

I am not an authority in any field, but I can look up the websites of organizations that can provide the answer, or follow links from these reputable websites to areas with additional information. I do not have to judge the quality if I am reading about space on the NASA website, as they are experts but I do have to have some faith that they are posting reliable information.

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.

How is this any different than any other social media we have? 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. Your idea that the print media is free from misinformation or lies is also very wrong, they are able to insert 'anonymous official says' and they can print what they want, without ever providing evidence there was an anonymous official . We saw it with the run up to the Iraq war; Kuwait war; viet nam; The UN; etc etc etc.

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.

[Voice of Reason]

Originally Posted by Greeney:

Please define your notion of freedom of speech VoR.

The freedom of individuals to voice an opinion, but not to lie or misinform.

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.

Why?

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.

Why?

Quote:

It's unnecessary to fuck with the internet to have something else people will only go to when they absolutely need it.

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.

Quote:

Most of us do learn to tell the difference between sites that present reliable or unreliable information.

I know people like to imagine they can, but they can't. According to Google, 211,000 websites say that "survival of the fittest" came from Charles Darwin. That is 211,000 websites that are wrong, but a hell of of a lot of people think they are right.

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.

So all that stuff about the information superhighway is wrong? maybe all you do is play, but for a lot of people is it a reference library. That is what search engines are for.

Quote:

Blogger pay to have the privilege of posting their thoughts.

No they don't. If you can get hold of the idea that the internet is about information, and try using a search engine, you will find that free blogs are ten a penny.

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.

What on earth are you talking about? I haven't said anything about performing an operation or slicing anyone open. You are just imagining that piece of information...

Quote:

I do have to have some faith that they are posting reliable information

"... 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

Bullshit. The Pentagon (or whatever) knows whether their anonymous official said it or not. Your belief that you can attribute a bunch of lies to the Pentagon with immunity is ridiculous.

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.

If you believe that, you are very naive. The obscenity, privacy, and vilification laws that you seem to have never heard of spring immediately to mind.

Quote:

As long as they do not break the laws I can see no reason to make them stop.

So you are happy with lies and misinformation as long as it is legal? Okay... I get it now.

[Greeney]

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason:

What have you people got against honesty? Since when did 'freedom to spread lies' become a human right?

Resorting to putting words in peoples mouths again?

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.

Yes, because I don't mind it I therefore like it so much. Brilliant use of logic. Trying to explain something that everyone else comprehends is like dealing with a real life Sheldon from Big Bang Theory.

[Voice of Reason]

Quote:

we don't have a problem with people posting facts on the internet,

Where did I say I did?

Quote:

we don't mind having to deal with people who post information on the internet.

Where did I say I did?

Quote:

You are the one with an interest on censoring people.

Stopping people from lying is not 'censoring'.

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.

You like it enough to be here arguing in favour of a right to lie and spread misinformation, so yes - logically you must like it. if you didn't like it you would want regulations to stop lies.

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.