hi_im_sean

iTrader: (3)

This is exactly what I was trying to explain to Joe a few months back. But Im not as eloquent.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

Agreed.

So two question arise:
There has always been false information and unverifiable data. Have we reached a point at which we deem the quantity of this information too great, or the people too stupid, to be able to decide for themselves what is valid and what is not, and shoulder the burden of making that decision for them?

If so, should this be implemented at the state level (by repealing the first amendment), or by altruistically implementing censorship at the level where the distribution channels are managed (eg: Verizon, CNN, Google, etc.), thus trusting a few large corporations to make these decisions for us?

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

I heard FB will weed out the bad stuff for us...

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

Yeah, that's what scares me...

It find it difficult to reconcile the fact that my parents' generation fought against censorship, and believed that every voice should be heard. My childrens' generation are now asking for censorship, demanding that some voices be silenced.

It's honestly chilling.

leboeuf

iTrader: (1)

In one of our local district races, one candidate's party sent out a mailer stating that the other candidate had used tax payer dollars to fund a vacation to Hawaii. The accused candidate had never been to Hawaii... I think he ended up losing... Propaganda driven politics...
I don't think there's any repercussion being planned against the accuser.
Should there be? Should there not be?
Censorship on facebook is completely fine, its a private entity. They will do what makes them the most money.

hornetball

iTrader: (4)

I think that may be a romanticized view of your parents' generation, honestly. Human beings are what they are. This country in particular has been much more divided in the past -- and limited media has also been more influential on a broader range of the population in the past.

The real difference now is the access to information. Original, source data is at your fingertips if you are interested enough to actually dig for it. Likewise, opinion/spin is 24/7 and the number of outlets and access for those outlets is an order of magnitude larger than in the past.

The challenge for all of us is to try and not live in our bubbles -- to try and live as individuals. But, it's human nature to seek bubbles and like-minded people . . . it's hard.

ridethecliche

iTrader: (2)

I think the issue for me is that the rise of pundits has drowned out the voice of academics, where the former hawk opinions as absolutes and the latter hawk information as it has been vetted. I think the anti-ivory tower intellectual thing is playing out in a pretty predictable way in our society, i.e. 'my opinion is worth as much as your facts'. People need to be able to distinguish what is someone's opinion and what is fact and I don't think anyone does a good job of stating which is which. I think this is an issue. I think fact checking during things like debates should happen.

The flip side as you and brain are getting at is that the control of information is vital to censorship and there's too much information to control. The easiest way to do it is to make all media state run, but that's so fucked up and should never be an option in a democracy. I'm not saying you shouldn't have state-media (thought I'm not sure what purpose this would serve), but censorship of information is irresponsible in a democracy.

At the same time, the advent of dr.google has made a lot of patently false medical information easily available and has made a lot of people really sick. I don't think it's reasonable to expect someone with a GED to be able to sift through all that stuff if they're scared for their health and figure out what's real and what's not. I don't think that there should be spoon feeding, but there are a lot of americans who can't afford to get care (as fucked up as that is) and I don't think they deserve that fate.

I guess I should disclose that I'm in med school. It'll make my views on the thing above more clear.

I don't disagree with doing this for sites that are clearly set up for page views with inflammatory headlines and bogus information. Once you weed those out, the next steps become far more murky right?

ridethecliche

iTrader: (2)

I think there should be repercussion if it was sanctioned. Then again with all the ways to hide who's doing the dirty, what's to stop them.

Yes. I never post on P&R forums because all it seems to do is pit people against each other. After reading here for a bit I decided to start participating because it felt like it was pretty respectful and I'm tired of the back patting in bubbles. My life has been far more interesting since I started spending time with people that didn't think exactly like me and disagree only on syntactical things.

The 24/7 news cycle is nuts though. During the election news channels had countdowns for hours and hours and hours to press conferences just going back and forth about what they thought was going to be announced. It's like holy ******* ****, why don't you report on what's going on in the rest of the world for a few hours and then come back to this half an hour before it starts.

sixshooter

iTrader: (12)

I couldn't agree more.
I recall the people of that generation teaching me to fight for people's right to speak dissenting views. I hear lots of talk of quashing unpopular voices and condoning or explaining away physical violence against people for holding unpopular views. That's a departure.

The words "melting pot" have been replaced with multiculturalism which is a method of dividing people into us/them groups to allow the politicians to give anyone and everyone an enemy to loathe and fear. This lets your fellow Americans be vilified and their ideas, values, and their very lives be reduced in value. It lets the politicians insulate their constituents from hearing ideas and proposals from the other side because the source is automatically not worthy of consideration. It works. And it will kill us.

I was also taught America was based upon self-reliance, rugged individualism, and personal liberty. We don't hear much of those ideas anymore.

sixshooter

iTrader: (12)

Agreed on the news being filtered drivel. There have been filters on news since it was a town crier, so there is nothing new under the sun. I go to foreign sources for world news because there is no world news in American broadcasting.

ridethecliche

iTrader: (2)

Isn't that insane though?

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

Trump was an okay landlord, but now that he's pres-elect...

Trump Name Removed From Manhattan Condo Complex After Residents' Petition | NBC New York

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

Not really. The same criticisms are lobbied by people in most countries which support a free press which is not state-funded.

Within the US, NPR is a relatively objective source of news reporting, as is Al Jazeera which, despite its foreign ownership, operates as a commercial entity in this country. BBC, of course, is probably the most reliable English-language broadcast news source, though it, of course, is state-funded and state-operated.

What's the alternative, really? Repeal the First Amendment? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Do we only eliminate freedom of speech and of the press, or is it time for the freedom of religion thing to go as well (that way we can legally prosecute people who aren't protestant Christians), and maybe we don't need the freedom of assembly and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. After all, riots start as assemblies, and there's no need to petition the government when we can clearly trust it to think for us.

ridethecliche

iTrader: (2)

I grew up in India (moved here at 11), so grew up watching BBC. I agree that AJ is actually a great source of information even on US issues.

I don't think repealing the first amendment is the answer. I do think you can have fact checked information without quashing the right of folks to speak their minds and opinions. It's when opinion is presented as objective truth where I have issues. But again, then it becomes important to figure out who's doing the fact checking.

What do you think of the president-elect's vetting process for the press. Do you think it impinges on freedom of the press?

ridethecliche

iTrader: (2)

Side note: this is pretty interesting.

Do you live in a bubble? Take this quiz to find out | PBS NewsHour

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

Did King Trump somehow decry a law that prevents the press from doing their job?

ridethecliche

iTrader: (2)

Lol @ king trump.

I was referencing his fondness for media blacklists and denying press credentialing.

hi_im_sean

iTrader: (3)

I definitely under no circumstances would want the 1rst amendment repealed.

I simply have no answer for this Joe. That's not to say I haven't thought about it extensively. It seems like every time you come up with an idea to fix it, it require some form of regulation, that in order to work, would rely on the morals and principles of those regulating. To which I find ironic, as you could make the argument that morals and principles, or lack of(normal human behavior), is what put us here to begin with.

If the morons that put out the anti 205 ads here in AZ had any morals in this context or (in my eyes of course) the "right" principles, maybe they wouldn't have lied through their teeth and make up fake data to sway things in their favor. And unfortunately confirmation bias is a real thing. So, you make a governing body that ensures the truthfulness of political ads? And who insures they are doing their job correctly, how do we keep money away from them? It just spirals out of control.

So the more I think about it, the more I agree with the "pass a test to vote" or other conversations that have been going on here lately. Not that that idea isn't subject to the same issues I just spoke of. ie- who rights the test?

ridethecliche

iTrader: (2)

I think that democracy rests on an educated populace. This might be more of a 'long-game' but I'd prefer to start by ensuring that public schools in rural arkansas are as good as those in yuppie-ville central.

You can teach kids civics whether they want to be rocket scientists or auto mechanics. I'm all for having tech high schools as well. Just because you don't want to be an academic or intellectual doesn't mean you shouldn't be aware of what's going on around you or be taught the tools with which to evaluate the world around you.

I think the reason people even started talking about tests etc is because our public school system is falling apart and the floor is set so low.