http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/11/...ive-force/

Apparently blaming this rising populism — politics that are popular with voters — on the internet, the German chancellor implied the internet would have to be subject to restrictive censorship laws as were enacted by many European nations to stem the disruptive effect of the printing press. She said:

“Digitisation is a disruptive technological force that brings about deep-seated change and transformation in society. Look at the history of the printing press, when this was invented what kind of consequences it had. Or industrialisation, what consequences that had.

“Very often, it led to enormous transformational processes within individual societies and it took a while until societies learned to find the right kinds of policies to contain this, to manage and steer this. We live in a period of profound transformation.”

This should be disturbing to everyone, regardless of political leanings. We should have a free market of ideas, not a system where proven liars are judge, jury, and executioner on what is and isn't a lie.

We're already seeing it from Obama's state department. The content of the reporter's questions don't matter, because the press secretary doesn't approve of the outlet she works for. F*** that.

It'd be one thing if reporting was a non-profit enterprise. But it's clearly not.


So if Reporting Company A makes profits for liberal causes and Reporting Company B makes profits for conservative causes, you can easily see how a situation can arise where those in power would favor one over the other.



Maybe official White House press releases, announcements, etc. should only ever be first published on a non-profit, non-partisan, .gov website, and then all the for-profit reporters can point to that.

(11-18-2016 12:44 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  It'd be one thing if reporting was a non-profit enterprise. But it's clearly not.


So if Reporting Company A makes profits for liberal causes and Reporting Company B makes profits for conservative causes, you can easily see how a situation can arise where those in power would favor one over the other.



Maybe official White House press releases, announcements, etc. should only ever be first published on a non-profit, non-partisan, .gov website, and then all the for-profit reporters can point to that.

Needs a catchy title. How about Pravda

The media should just stick to the Who, What, Where, When, Why and How of journalism. The sixth estate has really gone down the drain. Well, it's worst now, as there has always been a bias but it's worst now so personal opinions which U.S.A.Today cannot get away from hurts everyone even when they're in someones pocket. Proof is our latest election. Every conceivable MSM was for Killlary and yet she lost. Perhaps it was because it was so wide spread that the voting public started not believing what they wrote.

If you cry wolf incessantly eventually no one will believe you. DID YOU HEAR THAT MSM?

(11-18-2016 12:44 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  It'd be one thing if reporting was a non-profit enterprise. But it's clearly not.


So if Reporting Company A makes profits for liberal causes and Reporting Company B makes profits for conservative causes, you can easily see how a situation can arise where those in power would favor one over the other.



Maybe official White House press releases, announcements, etc. should only ever be first published on a non-profit, non-partisan, .gov website, and then all the for-profit reporters can point to that.

Great idea. Let's let the Government decide what we need to read. Lenin loved that idea.

(11-18-2016 11:37 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/11/...ive-force/

Apparently blaming this rising populism — politics that are popular with voters — on the internet, the German chancellor implied the internet would have to be subject to restrictive censorship laws as were enacted by many European nations to stem the disruptive effect of the printing press. She said:

“Digitisation is a disruptive technological force that brings about deep-seated change and transformation in society. Look at the history of the printing press, when this was invented what kind of consequences it had. Or industrialisation, what consequences that had.

“Very often, it led to enormous transformational processes within individual societies and it took a while until societies learned to find the right kinds of policies to contain this, to manage and steer this. We live in a period of profound transformation.”

I don't think that it is coincidence that these statements are made AFTER the US handed over control of the internet to some international body.

The printing press? Really? What sort of 'consequences' did the invention of the printing press have other than to cause those in positions of power to lose some of their control? Who thinks the printing press was a bad idea?

These people are scary.

(11-18-2016 01:51 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(11-18-2016 11:37 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/11/...ive-force/

Apparently blaming this rising populism — politics that are popular with voters — on the internet, the German chancellor implied the internet would have to be subject to restrictive censorship laws as were enacted by many European nations to stem the disruptive effect of the printing press. She said:

“Digitisation is a disruptive technological force that brings about deep-seated change and transformation in society. Look at the history of the printing press, when this was invented what kind of consequences it had. Or industrialisation, what consequences that had.

“Very often, it led to enormous transformational processes within individual societies and it took a while until societies learned to find the right kinds of policies to contain this, to manage and steer this. We live in a period of profound transformation.”

I don't think that it is coincidence that these statements are made AFTER the US handed over control of the internet to some international body.

The printing press? Really? What sort of 'consequences' did the invention of the printing press have other than to cause those in positions of power to lose some of their control? Who thinks the printing press was a bad idea?

These people are scary.

The printing press was responsible for Martin Luther to translate the Bible for the masses against the Catholic Church by printing the King James Bible. Also, the printing press was responsible for the colonies to get their anti-British rule. For two.

"Let's let the Government decide what we need to read."

Is that worse than "Let's let the investors decide what we need to read" ??

(11-18-2016 02:08 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  "Let's let the Government decide what we need to read."

Is that worse than "Let's let the investors decide what we need to read" ??

Both are bad. Keep away from our first amendment. See, you're proving yourself to be a Marxist already as I stated in another thread. That's how it all starts.

(11-18-2016 02:08 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  "Let's let the Government decide what we need to read."

Is that worse than "Let's let the investors decide what we need to read" ??

You would enjoy this book

(11-18-2016 02:29 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  

(11-18-2016 02:08 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  "Let's let the Government decide what we need to read."

Is that worse than "Let's let the investors decide what we need to read" ??

You would enjoy this book

She already has a leather bound copy.

(11-18-2016 02:07 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  The printing press was responsible for Martin Luther to translate the Bible for the masses against the Catholic Church by printing the King James Bible. Also, the printing press was responsible for the colonies to get their anti-British rule. For two.

I wouldn't consider those 'consequences'.



Bison, took me 1 second to delete the older posts. Get with the program

(11-18-2016 02:08 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  "Let's let the Government decide what we need to read."

Is that worse than "Let's let the investors decide what we need to read" ??

Yes... It's far worse because individuals can go to another company, they can't go to another Government.

(11-18-2016 12:40 PM)Kronke Wrote:  This should be disturbing to everyone, regardless of political leanings. We should have a free market of ideas, not a system where proven liars are judge, jury, and executioner on what is and isn't a lie.

We're already seeing it from Obama's state department. The content of the reporter's questions don't matter, because the press secretary doesn't approve of the outlet she works for. F*** that.

Not that I agree with Merkel, because I don't, but there are a lot of proven liars with huge followers on social media creating false narratives and shaping beliefs built on lies. This happens on both sides.

(11-18-2016 01:32 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(11-18-2016 12:44 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  It'd be one thing if reporting was a non-profit enterprise. But it's clearly not.


So if Reporting Company A makes profits for liberal causes and Reporting Company B makes profits for conservative causes, you can easily see how a situation can arise where those in power would favor one over the other.



Maybe official White House press releases, announcements, etc. should only ever be first published on a non-profit, non-partisan, .gov website, and then all the for-profit reporters can point to that.

Needs a catchy title. How about Pravda

Well played.

(11-18-2016 04:02 PM)Niner National Wrote:  

(11-18-2016 12:40 PM)Kronke Wrote:  This should be disturbing to everyone, regardless of political leanings. We should have a free market of ideas, not a system where proven liars are judge, jury, and executioner on what is and isn't a lie.

We're already seeing it from Obama's state department. The content of the reporter's questions don't matter, because the press secretary doesn't approve of the outlet she works for. F*** that.

Not that I agree with Merkel, because I don't, but there are a lot of proven liars with huge followers on social media creating false narratives and shaping beliefs built on lies. This happens on both sides.

So be it, allow the freedom of the press to arrive at the truth through debate and reason. If some idiot is running with a bunch of nonsense, the free market will out them as such.

This talk of governments having a hand in determining who is and isn't "fake" is INSANE.

(11-18-2016 04:15 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(11-18-2016 04:02 PM)Niner National Wrote:  

(11-18-2016 12:40 PM)Kronke Wrote:  This should be disturbing to everyone, regardless of political leanings. We should have a free market of ideas, not a system where proven liars are judge, jury, and executioner on what is and isn't a lie.

We're already seeing it from Obama's state department. The content of the reporter's questions don't matter, because the press secretary doesn't approve of the outlet she works for. F*** that.

Not that I agree with Merkel, because I don't, but there are a lot of proven liars with huge followers on social media creating false narratives and shaping beliefs built on lies. This happens on both sides.

So be it, allow the freedom of the press to arrive at the truth through debate and reason. If some idiot is running with a bunch of nonsense, the free market will out them as such.

This talk of governments having a hand in determining who is and isn't "fake" is INSANE.

Well, so far the free market didn't do a very good job rooting them out, but Google and Facebook removing the fake and clickbait news sites from their ad networks will be a huge start. They exist because they could throw up headlines like "The FBI just dropped a bomb on Hillary Clinton's election chances" or "You won't believe what Donald Trump did to cute innocent puppes" generate tens of thousands of shares, hundreds of thousands (even millions) of page views for every article spreading half truths and outright lies.

Half the population sees right through these "news" stories, but you have to keep in mind there are a lot of really stupid, easily influenced people out there.

If denial from the major ad networks occurs, these sites will lose most of their revenue and hopefully go away.

(11-18-2016 02:08 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  "Let's let the Government decide what we need to read."

Is that worse than "Let's let the investors decide what we need to read" ??

Yes.

(11-18-2016 04:26 PM)Niner National Wrote:  

(11-18-2016 04:15 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(11-18-2016 04:02 PM)Niner National Wrote:  

(11-18-2016 12:40 PM)Kronke Wrote:  This should be disturbing to everyone, regardless of political leanings. We should have a free market of ideas, not a system where proven liars are judge, jury, and executioner on what is and isn't a lie.

We're already seeing it from Obama's state department. The content of the reporter's questions don't matter, because the press secretary doesn't approve of the outlet she works for. F*** that.

Not that I agree with Merkel, because I don't, but there are a lot of proven liars with huge followers on social media creating false narratives and shaping beliefs built on lies. This happens on both sides.

So be it, allow the freedom of the press to arrive at the truth through debate and reason. If some idiot is running with a bunch of nonsense, the free market will out them as such.

This talk of governments having a hand in determining who is and isn't "fake" is INSANE.

Well, so far the free market didn't do a very good job rooting them out, but Google and Facebook removing the fake and clickbait news sites from their ad networks will be a huge start. They exist because they could throw up headlines like "The FBI just dropped a bomb on Hillary Clinton's election chances" or "You won't believe what Donald Trump did to cute innocent puppes" generate tens of thousands of shares, hundreds of thousands (even millions) of page views for every article spreading half truths and outright lies.

Half the population sees right through these "news" stories, but you have to keep in mind there are a lot of really stupid, easily influenced people out there.

If denial from the major ad networks occurs, these sites will lose most of their revenue and hopefully go away.

Of course there are, but most of the time it's willful ignorance. It is a tough putt to "make" people not ignorant.

I'm not sure the free market cares all that much about rooting out the trash so long as it generates clicks, but at least they could try and be unbiased.

At this point, the MSM and places like Google, Facebook, Yahoo, etc. have lost credibility with anyone who pays any attention. Sadly, about 50% of the population lives life in ignorant oblivion. Not much better than the senile folks that live in mindless bliss.............