Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-20-2016, 04:38 PM
 
Location: NE Ohio
30,419 posts, read 20,311,358 times
Reputation: 8958

Advertisements

Obama is obviously not for free speech. That could be why he turned over the Internet.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-20-2016, 04:43 PM
 
19,966 posts, read 7,873,534 times
Reputation: 6556
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy View Post
Obama is obviously not for free speech. That could be why he turned over the Internet.
Are any democrats or liberals for free speech? It doesn't seem like it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2016, 04:48 PM
 
Location: Eastern Colorado
3,887 posts, read 5,748,737 times
Reputation: 5386
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtl1 View Post
Are any democrats or liberals for free speech? It doesn't seem like it.
Sure they are, as long as your free speech contains language they like and being on their side of any and all issues.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2016, 04:49 PM
 
Location: Sarasota, FL
2,682 posts, read 2,180,607 times
Reputation: 5170
Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi View Post
i saw no mention of a "curator"

"Some sort of curating function" were the words used by Obama in the video. The one who implements that function is a curator.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2016, 05:33 PM
 
33,387 posts, read 34,847,766 times
Reputation: 20030
Quote:
Originally Posted by golimar View Post
Leftists are starting to sound more and more like the their Islamist allies.
or their soviet predecessors.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2016, 05:27 AM
 
Location: Kent, Ohio
3,429 posts, read 2,733,461 times
Reputation: 1667
Quote:
Originally Posted by jwiley View Post
Banning speech and information is the definition of censorship no matter how you try to spin it. A curator deciding what information people can and cannot see on the internet even if 99% of the public does not want to see it is censorship.
But you are missing the point. The concept of curation does not imply that anything is to be "banned," and it is mere political posturing to insist that somehow it does. That's why I used the example of Consumer Reports. They don't ban anything; they do research and publish results that help to weed out fact from fiction in product advertising. A curation function for the internet would do something similar. We already have the basic model for this - it's called science - and we already have some functions on the internet - their called fact-checking organizations. Nothing is to be "banned" - we just need to put a few more resources into doing in-depth research so that internet fact-checking can rise to something closer to the level of science.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2016, 05:34 AM
 
45,226 posts, read 26,450,499 times
Reputation: 24984
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof View Post
But you are missing the point. The concept of curation does not imply that anything is to be "banned," and it is mere political posturing to insist that somehow it does. That's why I used the example of Consumer Reports. They don't ban anything; they do research and publish results that help to weed out fact from fiction in product advertising. A curation function for the internet would do something similar. We already have the basic model for this - it's called science - and we already have some functions on the internet - their called fact-checking organizations. Nothing is to be "banned" - we just need to put a few more resources into doing in-depth research so that internet fact-checking can rise to something closer to the level of science.
Uh Yes consumer reports, a free market concept, not quite the same as a gov run information curator.
Funny you mention science, yet another area where govt funding and meddling has distorted the truth.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2016, 05:58 AM
 
Location: Eastern Colorado
3,887 posts, read 5,748,737 times
Reputation: 5386
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof View Post
But you are missing the point. The concept of curation does not imply that anything is to be "banned," and it is mere political posturing to insist that somehow it does. That's why I used the example of Consumer Reports. They don't ban anything; they do research and publish results that help to weed out fact from fiction in product advertising. A curation function for the internet would do something similar. We already have the basic model for this - it's called science - and we already have some functions on the internet - their called fact-checking organizations. Nothing is to be "banned" - we just need to put a few more resources into doing in-depth research so that internet fact-checking can rise to something closer to the level of science.
No people can do their own fact checking, allowing other people to decide what is true and what is not and then not allowing the information to get to the people is banning that information.

Closer to the level of science? Like the science behind Mansanto? Like the science behind vaccines? Like the science that says Cannabis should be illegal? LIke the science behind global warming? Or the science behind the old thoughts that the earth was flat? Science is not about facts, it has been bastardized to the point that it is about money and finding a way to get the results that whoever is paying for the study wants it to be.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2016, 06:11 AM
 
Location: St. Louis
7,444 posts, read 7,018,386 times
Reputation: 4601
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtl1 View Post
Are any democrats or liberals for free speech? It doesn't seem like it.
They want us to know the official "truth", like when Hillary said at the debate that 17 US intelligence agencies attribute the wikileaks hack to Russia. Well, not exactly:

https://theintercept.com/2016/10/11/...s-putin-plots/

Hillary Clinton -- Democratic Emails Hacked by Russia | National Review

http://rebootingcapitalism.com/2016/...actually-fact/
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:33 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top