Join the Discussion

Comments So Far: 16

• 0%

  Goppy4 months, 1 week ago

  As a Christian Conservative, Im against Google.

  First of all, their slogan "Do no evil', is contrary to our values and ethics, which USED to be based in the teachings of Jesus.

  However, since we realized that them teachins bore a striking resemblance to some of them Liburals agenda, (liek health care for kids, tolerance for all, peace, care for the planet, fairness for the middle classes ... stuff liek that) we had to rewrite our raison de etra.

  My only consolation is that our Conservatives will buy this media giant out. We already own FOX, ABC, CBS, NBC, Clear Channel, CBN - and others.

  I expect that we will eventually buy out Google before they begin to promote their 'Do No Evil' throughout the country!

  THEN we will get Rush Limbaugh into some kinda format there.

  For shure.

  Reply
• 0%

  evan6549814 months, 1 week ago

  I think it's useful for me. Thank you fo sharing.

  Reply
• 0%

  ETproductions4 months, 1 week ago

  In none of this do I find a lot of hope for maintaining net neutrality and the free and open exchange of ideas.

  Reply
• 0%

  doggammit4 months, 1 week ago

  The corporate agencies behind these renewed initiatives speak only for themselves - as usual. Neutrality and democracy are diametrically opposed to the current media chicane. Give corporate media the censorship wedge and it's only a matter of time before options narrow and resources become diverted into micromanaged streams of self interest. As it is - even though Google offers a wide portal of alternatives, one look at their news page shows what a closed shop of mainstream news gathering afflicts the glossy surface of that output.

  Reply

  1 Reply

  • 0%

    1-2-Oscar4 months, 1 week ago

    That's fine rhetoric, sir, with little substance behind it. Democracy and neutrality are important words in the proper context, but what do they mean on the internet? Do they mean that every site is equal? That's absurd! Do they mean that the provider should NOT be able to control what appears on his site? Equally ridiculous!

    "Corporate media," which you seem to regard as evil, possesses the necessary resources to provide a vast array of information and services. No "democratic" individual will ever be able to match that. Thus, the users will be drawn to the sites that best serve their needs, and if you lack the resources to do so you will lose.

    This site is an example of how corporate media influences everything on the net. But would you come here if it was only Goppy?

    Reply
• 0%

  doggammit4 months, 1 week ago

  Oscar, I don't think it is empty rhetoric... and with a little effort I could probably provide some urls that show how at least one recent "public forum" on "the future of the Internet" was hijacked by a corporate concern that found clever ways of stacking the room with crew members - thereby excluding independent advocates who opposed the types of change this corporate lobby was advancing.

  Reply

  1 Reply

  • 0%

    doggammit4 months, 1 week ago

    In any case, I'm not even discussing the question of site/content equality - just the right to choose. As you probably know, service providers pose commercial and content regulations to those who wish to upload new sites. So, there is already some limited amount of regulation to begin with and I am not eager to see the current levels expanded upon - particularly if the lobbies who advocate commercial expansion and/or increased regulation resort to back room tactics that exclude public input.

    As for corporate media - consider Rupert Murdoch et al and then ask yourself if we are not better off with choice than the kinds of limited choices the MSM run by us every news day.

    Reply
• 0%

  doggammit4 months, 1 week ago

  This site is an example of how corporate media influences everything on the net. But would you come here if it was only Goppy?

  I might - or if Goppy or "a Goppy" had his own site I could be tempted to visit. In any case - my prefs are my own - just as yours are yours. Are you satisfied with things as they are? I have no real complaints as long as i am given free choice - not just the illusion of free choice. Alternately, there are some places - like Facebook and My Space that I would not even consider due to privacy and other issues that dog their heels. But once again, the internet is a buffet and if I want anchovies on my pizza I have a way to get them - for now and I hope for always. Let the Chinese eat cake - if that's all their government will allow them - but just keep those Murdochy little hands off my anchovies...

  Reply

  8 Replies

  • 0%

    1-2-Oscar4 months, 1 week ago

    Just because particular sites (whether individual or corporate) choose to exclude some types of content, that does not constitute "censorship." You can always take the content to another site, and if everyone bars you, you can set up your own service. The internet is open to everyone.

    By the same token, if you own a home, you can exclude some behaviors. But those behaviors are not eliminated from the planet simply because you don't let them happen in your living room. As you say, "My prefs are my own." What right have you to deny the exercise of "prefs" (personal or corporate) to others? Or is your insistence that everyone (including Murdoch) cater to your "prefs" simply a manifestation of terminal immaturity?

    Reply

    7 Replies

    • 0%

      doggammit4 months, 1 week ago

      My insistence is that people like Murdoch - who never have enough of anything until they have it all - don't gain the legal authority to monopolize large chunks of internet real estate or create competitive conditions that preclude grass roots alternatives. Not everyone can afford to own and operate their own server unit much less a staff of journalists, editors and marketing personnel to do the CEO's bidding ...

      Regulatory clouds gathering on the internet horizon may or may not bring a hurricane - but some back channels are always lobbying to that effect. In parallel, we should be well aware of Bill Gate's/Microsoft's grandiose intentions and I for one would not be satisfied if our current MSM version of Chinese weather obscures blue skies. There are issues of degree and increment attached and if you are truly curious about these matters, people with more expertise than myself are out there if you want to consult with them.

      Reply

      6 Replies

      • 0%

        1-2-Oscar4 months, 1 week ago

        What you object to is a long way from "censorship," But "censorship" is the word you very specifically used above, in your initial post in this thread.

        Do you even understand what the word means?

        Then there is the other side of the coin. You say that "people like Murdoch" could gain the "legal authority" to "create competitive conditions which preclude (sic) grass roots alternatives." What sort of "legal authority" do you mean? Do you think it wise to remove the internet from private hands? What sort of alternative do you propose?

        Reply

        5 Replies

        • 0%

          1-2-Oscar4 months, 1 week ago

          Further, you have already admitted that, "Not everyone can afford to own and operate their own server unit much less a staff of journalists." Given that, why should I be served my news content by persons who don't have the resources to investigate and report, or even to check the facts? There are bits and pieces of grassroots journalism that are worthwhile, but most of it is unadulterated crap.

          Reply

          4 Replies

          • 0%

            doggammit4 months ago

            There are major problems with corporate investigative journalism - i.e they leave out "inconvenient facts" to please their CEO's and whomever the CEO's support in that fairy ring of beltway politics we have come to mistake for a democratic government - or are you not aware of the the whys and wherefores of that precarious situation?

            Our MSM news is filtered on multiple levels - which more than implies CENSORSHIP. Sometimes the only way you even know the news is being censored is by cross referencing foreign or indie sources - which many people do and feel the pressing need to do given the contemporary smoke and mirrors and bunkered secrecy surrounding many important civil issues. I hope that is not news to you.

            Reply

            3 Replies

            • 0%

              doggammit4 months ago

              Without the indies we are at the mercy of the same extreme RW corporate lobbyists that bring us FOX-Murdoch, Moonie owned Washiington Times, the patsy NY Times et al. You can include in this short list all the high circulation LW rags if you want and if you don't consider that kind of partisanship the epitome of crap - well there's not much more I can offer you at this point except "let the buyer beware".

              Reply

              2 Replies

              • 0%

                1-2-Oscar4 months ago

                You don't seem to want to address the questions.

                "What sort of "legal authority" do you mean?"

                "Do you think it wise to remove the internet from private hands?"

                "What sort of alternative do you propose?"

                And

                "Why should I be served my news content by persons who don't have the resources to investigate and report, or even to check the facts?"

                Do relevant questions make you uncomfortable? I understand that it is easier to spout an ideology than it is to apply it, but the devil is always in the details.

                Reply

                1 Reply

                • 0%

                  doggammit4 months ago

                  I have no time for your "details" oscar. I do have to work for a living and neither you nor propellor are my paycheck.

                  check out communication regulatory legislation and sub committee advisors

                  check out media deregulation

                  check out CERN

                  check out current movements in lobbying for a free internet

                  ... and I'll see you next year when YOU have all the answers...

                  Reply