|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
Can You Trust Your Computer? - 11/16/2008 12:59:21 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1393
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
I found this interesting
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/can-you-trust.html
I don't know how far these special interest groups would get as far as being able to control things like the Internet and our computers. However, when I look at how much control special interest groups have gotten over mainstream media in the last 30 or so years (ie: FCC deregulation allowing very few special interest groups to control a substantial portion of the media which prevents plenty of important news from getting out (ie: much of the news on the FDA I post under current events)), I have little doubt that many of these same entities that have managed to gain so much control over mainstream media (and other similar entities as well) are attempting to control the Internet and our computers just as well. We need to ensure that special interest groups do not control our computers, that they do not control freedom of expression over the Internet, and we need to be proactive (not simply reactive) by ensuring that the media does cover a wider variety of important news from a wider variety of perspectives. We need to influence the government to break the monopoly/cartel on media by allowing more entities to own the media.
quote:
The FCC is about to put vital control of media in this country in a very few hands -- and quickly needs to be stopped. Under "deregulation" rules proposed by the Federal Communications Commission, the already dangerous monopoly of TV and radio (and therefore of news, public thought and action) would dramatically worsen. The five corporations that own TV networks would be green-lighted to buy up each other. Local TV and radio stations would be swallowed by larger companies. Local newspapers and broadcast outlets would be allowed to purchase each other.
In a few years, Fox, General Electric and the radio giant Clear Channel - the most ambitious players - would potentially have an iron grip on the way the majority of the public gets its information.
http://www.21stcenturyradio.com/articles/03/0508189.html
FCC eases media-ownership rules Agency splits 3-2; vote could trigger acquisitions
TECHNOLOGY & MEDIA: PENDING; Fight Over F.C.C. Deregulation
These entities are persistent when it comes to taking away our freedoms and censoring important information from us. We need to be just as persistent at preventing them from taking away our freedoms and preventing them from censoring important information.
FCC Media Ownership and Deregulation
http://www.hearusnow.org/mediaownership/25/
http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/D/htmlD/deregulation/deregulation.htm
I also found this interesting
quote:
I subscribe to (and donate to) a feed from Truthout that aggregates news from domestic and international sources ranging from the New York Times and The Independent ... Several email newsletters a day arrive in my inbox digesting news that might be of interest to what we'll call an anti-war, pro-environment progressive.
But suddenly, they're not showing up the same way for AOL subscribers and users of "free" email services such as Microsoft-Hotmail and Yahoo, no matter how they try to adjust their filters. Here are some representative comments from Truthout subscribers:
I subscribe via my Hotmail account to a couple of conservative newsletters to keep track of what they are doing. Hotmail is not censoring those mails at all.
What I receive is the newsletter from Conservative Alerts.com, Family Research Council's prayer targets newsletter, and the Northern Virginia GOP Agenda newsletter. I don't often go into my Hotmail account and read anything there, but there is no censorship of the conservative stuff.
...
I have also had a problem with my newsletters from your organization, as well as ones from antiwar orgainzations, now being diverted to my Yahoo bulk mailbox, regardless of how often I mark them as "not spam". This started several weeks ago, and before that I always received such messages in my regular inbox. I find this insidious censorship frightening.
...
It isn't just newsletters that are being blocked - articles forwarded from Truthout are also being intercepted. An article on Gen. Petraeus that I forwarded yesterday to an AOL subscriber was marked ARTICLE NOT AVAILABLE
Free Market Censorship.
When it comes to T.V stations, one thing people should realize is that private media, funded by commercials, often suffers from market censorship. They have incentive not to say anything negative about those sponsoring them because they don't want to lose sponsorship. Of course, if we give the media over to the government, then it will suffer from government censorship. The government is unlikely to say anything bad about itself. What we kinda need here is a compromise. The overwhelming majority of stations should be owned by private entities and those should be reasonably diversified. On the other hand, there should be one single television station and one single radio station owned by the federal government where members of the government can have an opportunity to talk (and the president and each member of congress should be given a minimal amount of time per week or per month by which s/he can express his/her thoughts to the American people. He can say whatever he wants but, of course, he doesn't have to show up if he doesn't want to). This includes members of governmental agencies such as the FDA. On top of that, each state should have a single radio and television station (only within their state) owned by the state government where members of the state government are allowed to express their views (and prominent members, like the governor, have a minimal amount of time per week or per month to talk. Maybe an hour per week or whatever). Local governments should also have a station (only within the local boundaries), but even now, many already do. This way, we will have stations that are not subject to government censorship and we will also have stations that are not subject to market censorship. In essence, you get the best of both worlds. If a congressman disagrees with how the mainstream media portrays him, he has an opportunity to publicly defend himself. If one congressman disagrees with another, he can publicly disclose his disagreement. The other congressman also has the opportunity to publicly defend himself. The government can also release news against commercial entities that market censorship may otherwise prevent from being exposed.
Take the example of Harvard.
http://forums.christianity.com/m_3795161/mpage_2/tm.htm (post 33). If this news makes it to private media, it could potentially hurt pharmaceutical corporations and pharmaceutical corporations, in part, fund private media. So market censorship might stop this from making it to private media. However, market censorship might not stop it from making it on a government owned television station. If the government does something wrong, it may never make it on the government owned television station. However, private media stations may cover it. Again, the people get the best of both worlds and, overall, less gets censored.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 11/16/2008 1:49:03 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Can You Trust Your Computer? - 11/16/2008 10:29:21 AM
|
|
|
stellaluna
Posts: 4396
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
When it comes to T.V stations, one thing people should realize is that private media, funded by commercials, often suffers from market censorship. They have incentive not to say anything negative about those sponsoring them because they don't want to lose sponsorship.
That can happen in theory, but it really doesn't as much as people think it does. The bigger danger is the internet and news-on-demand. Audiences for local television are plummeting. Businesses are discovering the power of having their own website, which is exponentially cheaper than buying advertising on their local TV or radio station. There are only a handful of local stations that remain locally-owned; the rest are part of corporate groups and corporate doesn't really care what happens at the local level as long as they get their money. If businesses aren't buying advertising, they get their money by firing staff.
I can foresee a future in which there is only one station per city in cities of less than a million or so people. All news will come out of one building and it will mostly be automated. Or, like in some remote areas (New Mexico is one), there is only one television market and there are bureaus that piggy-back onto those newscasts. I can also foresee a future in which local newspapers will no longer be printed. Our local paper just this past summer cut half its cartoons and most of the features of its daily editions to save money. In the past month, the Christian Science Monitor became the first major paper to stop printing daily editions all together.
Media is changing and I think will soon be unrecognizable.
quote:
On the other hand, there should be one single television station and one single radio station owned by the federal government where members of the government can have an opportunity to talk (and the president and each member of congress should be given a minimal amount of time per week or per month by which s/he can express his/her thoughts to the American people. He can say whatever he wants but, of course, he doesn't have to show up if he doesn't want to).
It's called C-SPAN. 
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Can You Trust Your Computer? - 11/16/2008 11:15:16 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1393
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: stellaluna
The bigger danger is the internet and news-on-demand. Audiences for local television are plummeting. Businesses are discovering the power of having their own website, which is exponentially cheaper than buying advertising on their local TV or radio station.
This is a good thing, but the point I want to make is that, given how much control special interest groups have gotten over the public media over the pat 30 or so years, we shouldn't assume that they won't get similar control over the Internet. They have worked hard to gain the control over the media that they have gained (their ability to censor important news is substantial), we shouldn't assume no one is working hard to do the same for the Internet. On top of that, we need to be pro-active and ensure that important news doesn't get censored from public television.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 11/16/2008 11:23:08 AM >
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
