3,530
06-02-2024, 07:47 PM
This post was last modified 06-02-2024, 07:51 PM by Maxmars.
Edit Reason: spelling
I just can't accept that people should "be restricted" in "sharing" whatever the hell they want.
Communication on the internet is not some "defineable thing." Some people feel a dopamine hit when they find something that peaks there interest and then eagerly share it will all their friends. It's a fundamental aspect of human interaction. It is not up to some "third party," be they government, social control ideology, or marketting gimmickry, to tell us what and how we can communicate with one another. Ever. It's called "free speech." Add ANY proviso to the concept and you remove the actual meaning of the concept.
The problem isn't that people talk to each other. The problem as the "would-be definers" describe it, is that they have no control of it. It always boils down to "somebody ought to do something about people talking to each other." And the somebody you can infer from the statement, is meant to say "It won't be you."
Free speech is the fundamental quintessence of personal sovereingty. Every attack on that is an attack on the value of human connection.
Of course this doesn't mean that there are no dangers. But place the problem where it belongs... stop finding excuses to lie to the public, accept responsiblity for the many problems your errant policies have caused, and imagine the outrage of most politicians at this innane suggestion: Fix the problems by actually eliminating the causes. (Suffice to say most politicians know exactly where the problems are.)
The political class has allowed themselves to develop a cultural approach to governance which does not conform to the public benefit. Party first. By party, I mean the 'social shield' that keeps their dealings shrouded in uncertainty. All while "working for us," as they would say.
Calling for, or justifying any rationale to legitimize the stifling of human to human interaction (regardless of the medium) is the "camel's nose" as the proverb goes. The problem is the idea of telling people what they can share, illogically, I might add... as it belies the "acceptability" of it being there in the first place. If it is illegal, remove it or don't allow it to be disseminated, why punish the audience for offering what is there to others for their same entertainment?
The authors are conveying a tale of someone pissed-off about "what it is you're reading, and daring to share with anyone else you choose?" The truth is this efforts springs from their determination that they MUST know what it is your sharing so they CAN control it. So they can create a "one narrative world" for us to 'settle down' in it... and wait to be "told" what comes next (and how glorious it will be.)
Of course there is a lot of mis/dis-information out there. We get dosed daily by the media. Everyone who thinks can see it for themselves, they don't need you to "rescue" them from it.
People lie. The solution - Tell the truth. End of story.
The angst is really about how you "use," or plan to use, what you claim is "information." But somehow it's never the whole story, is it? It always leads to you getting more "control" and us less "say."
(Apologies - that should have been posted in the Rant Forum.)
Communication on the internet is not some "defineable thing." Some people feel a dopamine hit when they find something that peaks there interest and then eagerly share it will all their friends. It's a fundamental aspect of human interaction. It is not up to some "third party," be they government, social control ideology, or marketting gimmickry, to tell us what and how we can communicate with one another. Ever. It's called "free speech." Add ANY proviso to the concept and you remove the actual meaning of the concept.
The problem isn't that people talk to each other. The problem as the "would-be definers" describe it, is that they have no control of it. It always boils down to "somebody ought to do something about people talking to each other." And the somebody you can infer from the statement, is meant to say "It won't be you."
Free speech is the fundamental quintessence of personal sovereingty. Every attack on that is an attack on the value of human connection.
Of course this doesn't mean that there are no dangers. But place the problem where it belongs... stop finding excuses to lie to the public, accept responsiblity for the many problems your errant policies have caused, and imagine the outrage of most politicians at this innane suggestion: Fix the problems by actually eliminating the causes. (Suffice to say most politicians know exactly where the problems are.)
The political class has allowed themselves to develop a cultural approach to governance which does not conform to the public benefit. Party first. By party, I mean the 'social shield' that keeps their dealings shrouded in uncertainty. All while "working for us," as they would say.
Calling for, or justifying any rationale to legitimize the stifling of human to human interaction (regardless of the medium) is the "camel's nose" as the proverb goes. The problem is the idea of telling people what they can share, illogically, I might add... as it belies the "acceptability" of it being there in the first place. If it is illegal, remove it or don't allow it to be disseminated, why punish the audience for offering what is there to others for their same entertainment?
The authors are conveying a tale of someone pissed-off about "what it is you're reading, and daring to share with anyone else you choose?" The truth is this efforts springs from their determination that they MUST know what it is your sharing so they CAN control it. So they can create a "one narrative world" for us to 'settle down' in it... and wait to be "told" what comes next (and how glorious it will be.)
Of course there is a lot of mis/dis-information out there. We get dosed daily by the media. Everyone who thinks can see it for themselves, they don't need you to "rescue" them from it.
People lie. The solution - Tell the truth. End of story.
The angst is really about how you "use," or plan to use, what you claim is "information." But somehow it's never the whole story, is it? It always leads to you getting more "control" and us less "say."
(Apologies - that should have been posted in the Rant Forum.)
