TASSY P2P FORUMS

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070817-fcc-commissioner-pearl-jam-censorship-linked-to-net-neutrality-fight.html

Well, do we really want to allow telcos to censor the internet?

It does seem to me that this has become an issue of free speech, what next Murdoch censoring the news or the Dow Jones (he now owns the wall street journal), how about censoring election results?

A Telco being able to decide what we should and shouldnt be able to view is a little rich and something needs to be done about it.

Its worse than that, apparently they edited videos to remove negative remarks about Bush.

As long as the government is not doing the censorship then Im okay with it. The market place should dictate the standards. That's you, me and everyone else.

dav4flynn wrote:As long as the government is not doing the censorship then Im okay with it. The market place should dictate the standards. That's you, me and everyone else.

Um, since when do you or I control what AT&T do?

Personally, I'm against any form of censorship by anyone, free speech is something that has been bought with the lives of many thousands, maybe millions of people and under no circumstances should it be thrown away for ANY reason.

If you dont like what At&T is doing dont use thier services. They'll change their behavior.

Well i think its more likely that if AT&T can get away with it, more will try to. The question is, do you feel a large/small corporation should be allowed to dictate what news you recieve and edit it acordingly. Or would you rather that decision be left to you.

I would say they do everyday with every article. It's just more overt when they have to press the bleep button. It's impossible not to bring your own political persuassion to the table as a news person. The best the layman can hope for is that the editors hire reporters with different viewpoints. Unfortunately that just doesnt happen routinely. 80-90% or reporters in major news outlets have one political viewpoint, in this country. It's about the same with colleges professors(closer to 90%).

Several of the more promient news sources have to overtly moved to a bias viewpoint and thier numbers reflect the dislike. Their numbers go downhill the more bias they are perceived. After our elections I suspect they will move slightly more to a neutral position and thier numbers will rebound.

Business officers have a responsibility to thier shareholders to maximze thier ROI. If they lean too far in any direction then they are not acting in a feduciary manner and will be removed. And then, the circle is complete.

Do you not like a free marketplace?

Lines need to be drawn though. Much as the other article i posted about the reporter being sacked over the Rudd - strip club story. I dont wish to just submit to having this kinda stuff become acceptable. Id rather head the other direction.

Yes I like a free marketplace, but that freedom should be within boundaries, they should not have a free reign.

News organizations are meant to be objective, to deliberately censor political comments is going beyond the boundaries.

A'Ton Sands wrote:News organizations are meant to be objective, to deliberately censor political comments is going beyond the boundaries.

I agree. ISPs and Telco's are not News organisations and therefore are wholly unqualified to edit for truth to present a clear summary of the facts in the minutes/space allowed to them. Hell, these days we can't even be sure that all News organisations are qualified to do that either. I used to subscribe to FOX (we get the US FOX News over here in the UK) but I found their bias interfered with the news. At least they were up-front about their bias and it was my choice as to whether I continued to subscribe.

Gelf isnt that a good reason to keep Fox for an alternate viewpoint? I dont kill ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, CNN Headlines News, and virtually every newspaper in print.

Imcurious, what is the collective opinion of Margaret Thatcher?

The problems come when they blur the difference between reporting (the facts) and editorializing.

When an editorial proports to be a report then you have problems.

I do find it interesting, I rely on the B.B.C. for reporting, for the vast majority of the time they stick to facts when reporting.

When I look at C.N.N. and Fox their reports are so Biased the its often difficult to find the facts in them.

The problem is, if the average American only relies on a single channel of news they will get a very distorted view on the world.

Well, I couldnt agree more.

dav4flynn wrote:
Imcurious, what is the collective opinion of Margaret Thatcher?

old cow who used to use scotland to test out taxes before unleashing the on the rest of the country

20 years later, you can see where she tried to take the country, and respect her for it

It was her fault that I almost got brained by a policeman and ruined a good suit.

did she dare him to do it?

I was working in London at the time of the Poll Tax riots and got out of tube at the wrong station.
As I got out of the station this group of kids ran passes followed by a group of truncheon wielding cops.
This fat policeman was trailing behind his mates and decided to take a swing at me, honest! all I was doing was standing at the entrance to the tube station.
He got my elbow on his nose for his trouble I never did manage to get the blood stain out of that suit.

a'ton- aka swampy

I think the cop gave you one on account....