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.
Suppose you tell us why, given the plain meaning of his words, he is not proposing censorship? Who decides what information is "true" and what about those ideas that don't fall easily in a category?
Censorship implies that some speech/information would be banned - meaning the public would not be allowed to see it. I have seen not even the slightest hint of Obama, or any other Dem, proposing censorship. A curator manages or oversees a collection. It does not imply making anything completely unavailable. Sure, the curator of a museum could, technically, destroy some piece in his collection, but there is absolutely nothing in the context of Obama's statements that implies he is advocating censorship. He is simply pointing out that the "wild west" nature of the internet - where basically anyone can say basically anything to an enormous audience instantly - has made it difficult for most average people to focus on actual news (i.e., claims of fact that are carefully researched, fact-checked, and offered with references to substantiating documentation). "True" is a strong word, and even the most carefully researched and documented claims can't absolutely guarantee truth, but we should find some way to identify and honor the people and organizations who do make a strong effort to check their facts before spouting their claims.
Think of Consumer Reports - they test consumer products using fairly objective measures to evaluate the worth of products. They don't "ban" products that they don't like. Of course there is never any absolute guarantee that their analysis is accurate, but at least they give consumers some helpful information to go on. They are "curators" of information related to products. Consumers choose to pay attention to Consumer Reports, or not. There is no censorship. Given the context of Obama's proposal, this is clearly the sort of thing he has in mind: seeking some fairly objective - perhaps even as "scientific" as possible - process for fact-checking claims.
A lot of people have jumped into this topic claiming that Obama is promoting censorship, but these accusations are simply a bunch of politically motivated scare tactics.
Oh for the days when the masses watched Walter Cronkite and believed him.
The news was historically a loss leader before prime time and late evening programming. Cable News demonstrated it could bt profitable, very, very profitable, when opinionators interpreted and told their viewers how they should react.
Then came the internet where anything goes. People believe anything when it seems to validate their perceptions. People tend to dismiss anything when it seems to challenge their perceptions.
What's truth got to do with it?
The bold is totally the truth IMO for about 90% of the populace. I do think there is a minority of people who critically think about what media is saying and consider opposite views/sources.
Speak for yourself. I for one am happy to have more sources of information than just Walter Cronkite.
But do you seek out other sources that conflict with what you personally believe?
That is the gist of MaM's comment - that people will seek out sources that validate their own perceptions. They do not even consider that a source that is opposite of their perception can be truthful.
IMO this is a dangerous trait that is rampant today in the internet age.
It is very sad also IMO that many people believe practically anything that upholds their argument/position, even if it is totally fabricated.
Censorship implies that some speech/information would be banned - meaning the public would not be allowed to see it. I have seen not even the slightest hint of Obama, or any other Dem, proposing censorship. A curator manages or oversees a collection. It does not imply making anything completely unavailable. Sure, the curator of a museum could, technically, destroy some piece in his collection, but there is absolutely nothing in the context of Obama's statements that implies he is advocating censorship. He is simply pointing out that the "wild west" nature of the internet - where basically anyone can say basically anything to an enormous audience instantly - has made it difficult for most average people to focus on actual news (i.e., claims of fact that are carefully researched, fact-checked, and offered with references to substantiating documentation). "True" is a strong word, and even the most carefully researched and documented claims can't absolutely guarantee truth, but we should find some way to identify and honor the people and organizations who do make a strong effort to check their facts before spouting their claims.
Think of Consumer Reports - they test consumer products using fairly objective measures to evaluate the worth of products. They don't "ban" products that they don't like. Of course there is never any absolute guarantee that their analysis is accurate, but at least they give consumers some helpful information to go on. They are "curators" of information related to products. Consumers choose to pay attention to Consumer Reports, or not. There is no censorship. Given the context of Obama's proposal, this is clearly the sort of thing he has in mind: seeking some fairly objective - perhaps even as "scientific" as possible - process for fact-checking claims.
A lot of people have jumped into this topic claiming that Obama is promoting censorship, but that is simply a bunch of politically motivated scare tactics.
You haven't seen the slightest hint? I see it quite clearly in the gist of what he is proposing.
You say a curator "manages or oversees" a collection, as if that does not imply the selective presentation of information. Let me speak for myself -- I don't need Obama's or anybody else's help navigating the "Wild West" of the internet or doing my thinking for me. I see no reason why I should trust him, or anybody else for that matter, not to edit content to suit their agenda. Indeed, it is precisely the strength of the internet as a world-changing technology that it is open to all.
I happen to subscribe to consumer reports. The analogy does not hold -- ideas are not lawnmowers. A product like an automobile can be tested by objective standards and the results published. How do you test an idea by objective standards? What would Obama and his curators say about, for example, moral or religious issues? Would they "curate" ideas to prevent people from clinging to guns and religion?
Don't get me wrong, I would not accept this proposal from anybody, Democrat or Republican. Anyone who is confused by the wealth of information available can get help, or devote some time and effort to doing their research and use their own judgment. The fact that some people may have trouble doing this is no excuse to dumb down the defining technology of our time, and certainly no excuse to tamper with freedom of expression. Do you really not see the danger in allowing any particular group to control the flow of information?
Last edited by CapnTrips; 10-20-2016 at 08:56 AM..
Censorship implies that some speech/information would be banned - meaning the public would not be allowed to see it. I have seen not even the slightest hint of Obama, or any other Dem, proposing censorship. A curator manages or oversees a collection. It does not imply making anything completely unavailable.
1. There is no justification for a partisan government to "curate" information in a society that holds freedom of speech to be a prime value.
If the government is biased, then the curation will be biased as to what is held to be "true".
Anyone who thinks otherwise in the USA can be presented with every documented lie that the government has told over the past 100 years, to start, to justify war. And that will be barely scratching the surface of what it lies in regard to.
The nature of democracy assures that the government will always be biased, and beyond that the bureaucratic, undemocratic machine of the USA is proven to be hopelessly liberal (see the IRS targeting scandal against conservative groups).
2. "Curation" is a barely PC word for "first step on the way to censorship".
3. The insane behavior of the press in this election season, and their willful complete overhaul as to what constitutes truth, is proof enough that truth "curation" is a horrid idea precisely because there doesn't exist an objective enough group of people to do the curation.
The lying and colluding press has no significant opposition with enough of a platform to counter their nonsense, and thus there doesn't exist enough of an objective counterforce to pushback against liberal-communist distortion of truth.
4. That the president has proposed this notion at all, but especially in this election cycle, is absolutely alarming because, taken in tandem with the press's unopposed and unprecedented behavior, it heralds in an age where the Left is starting to get bold and creep toward blatantly oppressive tactics precisely because they lack a real opponent. The current Silicon Valley, press enabled witch hunt against Peter Thiel, for donating a measly 1.25 million to Donald Trump in contrast with the 100X amount that Hillary has received from corporate donors, is another disturbing symptom of this trend.
The fact that the popular Left, which I assume that you at least in-part are representative of, is cosigning this suggestion is also alarming. It means that you see yourself as politically dominant and relatively unopposed to the point that opposition voices are now seen as threats that can and should be put down without risk to your own political freedom. To wit, if we had a dominant conservative society and government you absolutely would not think such a suggestion to be a good idea. Thus, your endorsement is self-interested as opposed to protective of our democracy, which makes your ilk a threat to democracy and freedom of speech.
In the 1960's, your equivalent would have been screaming at the top of their lungs to maintain "uncurated" speech. My, how times have changed as democrats like yourself are dipping their big toe in the Stalinist waters.
Quote:
He is simply pointing out that the "wild west" nature of the internet - where basically anyone can say basically anything to an enormous audience instantly -
This is free speech. Live with it.
Quote:
has made it difficult for most average people to focus on actual news (i.e., claims of fact that are carefully researched, fact-checked, and offered with references to substantiating documentation).
There is no "actual news" anymore apart from accident and terrorism reporting. There is only partisan news.
Quote:
"True" is a strong word, and even the most carefully researched and documented claims can't absolutely guarantee truth, but we should find some way to identify and honor the people and organizations who do make a strong effort to check their facts before spouting their claims.
Those organizations no longer exist, as witnessed in this election season.
Quote:
Think of Consumer Reports - they test consumer products using fairly objective measures to evaluate the worth of products. They don't "ban" products that they don't like. Of course there is never any absolute guarantee that their analysis is accurate, but at least they give consumers some helpful information to go on. They are "curators" of information related to products. Consumers choose to pay attention to Consumer Reports, or not.
The only way this would work is to have government funded, openly partisan organizations that each check the other side's "news". Any pretension of objectivity will only miselad the public and worsen the problem. The public can then check each partisan "consumer reports" agency that they wish. That's in theory. However, can you identify why it won't actually work? The central pillars of "conservative" news are in actuality "neoconservative" and are mostly concerned with Israel and forwarding the social agendas of the Left in all except speech. Any real threat to "progress" is shut down by these organizations in terms of propaganda coverage and what they report as "truth" or political endorsements. Witness The National Review Online. Witness Fox News, who is one of the all-time largest donors to the Clintons. Thus, Trumps constituency will likely remain propagandized even if a so called "conservative" consumer reports for information is brought to pass.
As I said, objectivity is not possible in this nation. In a homogeneous nation, perhaps. But not in a nation wherein so many disparate groups are vying for power.
Quote:
A lot of people have jumped into this topic claiming that Obama is promoting censorship, but these accusations are simply a bunch of politically motivated scare tactics.
And you're making politically motivate excuses over an alarming, anti-American proposal that has only one ultimate objective.
Adults, a large contingent who are better educated than Obama and other politicians, do not need help in information curation. We're managing well, thank you. Good luck with your strategy moving forward; I predict this one will not go over well.
I don't need Obama's or anybody else's help navigating the "Wild West" of the internet or doing my thinking for me. I see no reason why I should trust him, or anybody else for that matter, not to edit content to suit their agenda.
That is your right, and nothing Obama said would take that right away from you. I'd say that anyone who thinks Obama is trying to take that right away is a victim of confirmation bias. (Having already decided that Obama is a villain, such a person will tend to read into his words all of the villainous things they'd expect a villain to say, while ignoring the context and evidence that contradicts their perception.)
Quote:
Indeed, it is precisely the strength of the internet as a world-changing technology that it is open to all.
Yes! This is a tremendous strength of the internet. But it is difficult to find anything with the power to do good that does not also have the power to do harm.
Quote:
I happen to subscribe to consumer reports. The analogy does not hold -- ideas are not lawnmowers. A product like an automobile can be tested by objective standards and the results published. How do you test an idea by objective standards?
Here is a possible major source of confusion: It's not about testing "ideas"; it about testing news - i.e., claims about objective facts. Facts can generally be tested to some extent. This is essentially what the scientific method is meant to accomplish. When claiming that X is a "fact" it is important to offer evidence that X is a fact, and explain your method for deciding that X is a fact - often giving references to other sources you've drawn from so that those sources can be judged as well. Notice that this rarely happens in these C-D treads. People claim X without offering any specific evidenced or references. Thus these discussion instantly become mere shouting matches. What's worrisome is that the capacity for shouting loudly and persistently is rarely correlated with the ability to speak thoughtfully.
That is your right, and nothing Obama said would take that right away from you. I'd say that anyone who thinks Obama is trying to take that right away is a victim of confirmation bias. (Having already decided that Obama is a villain, such a person will tend to read into his words all of the villainous things they'd expect a villain to say, while ignoring the context and evidence that contradicts their perception.)
Yes! This is a tremendous strength of the internet. But it is difficult to find anything with the power to do good that does not also have the power to do harm.
Here is a possible major source of confusion: It's not about testing "ideas"; it about testing news - i.e., claims about objective facts. Facts can generally be tested to some extent. This is essentially what the scientific method is meant to accomplish. When claiming that X is a "fact" it is important to offer evidence that X is a fact, and explain your method for deciding that X is a fact - often giving references to other sources you've drawn from so that those sources can be judged as well. Notice that this rarely happens in these C-D treads. People claim X without offering any specific evidenced or references. Thus these discussion instantly become mere shouting matches. What's worrisome is that the capacity for shouting loudly and persistently is rarely correlated with the ability to speak thoughtfully.
On the contrary. If all that was intended is to provide an alternative source of information which is vetted by "curators" for the benefit of the public, then no further discussion is needed -- that website or websites can be supplied now. And if people want to visit such websites, nothing can take that away from them, as you said. No sweeping changes to the wild west are necessary. His words, which were quite vague for whatever reason, strongly suggest a project more ambitious and much wider in scope, which is intended to take us back to the days "when people trusted the news." You can argue that he never proposed enacting such sweeping controls as I am suggesting, but then why bring up the idea at all if the problem can be handled more simply?
What happens when the curators decide that a particular event need not be reported because it is insufficiently backed up? First thing that happens is the news event disappears -- no one else is going to pursue a news lead that they don't know about, tho pursuit could yield a developing story. And who sets the minimum requirements for authenticity? Do we need video footage? statements from more than one witness? Is the witness' credibility taken into account and by what standards? Who appoints the curators? Are they guaranteed to be free of any bias -- social, political, economic, gender, age, ethnicity, etc?
How do you distinguish a news event from the driving forces behind it? If a political group marches in protest, but no one from the govt happened to be around to record it, can anyone guarantee that the exclusion of such an event from the news is not an ideologically motivated act? Surely you can see the inherent danger of manipulation in a system of information control that contains so many discretionary standards? The idea that any one individual or group can provide a truly reliable, objective way to get at the true facts of something couldn't be much further from the truth.
Yes, in a perfect world it would be nice if we could trust what we read on the internet and on our grocery labels. But in the end, there can be no substitute for using your intelligence and personal judgment. Simply put, the alleged benefits of such a proposal to a few who cannot, or will not think for themselves do not justify the danger to a society that values freedom of expression.
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.
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.
