General > General Technical Chat
Youtube/Google is evil, time to fight back
cdev:
My local grocery store is filled with posters asking for GoFund me funds for people I grew up with who put off healthcare and ended up with "incurable" cancers.. Then insurance companies get to basically do nothing because its too late. Going to the doctor may cost you $250-$500 but thats probably because you have some health issue. That needs curative care. You can get free care if its only preventative.. in the US, this was for corporations. So that patients would not talk about work related chemicals. Or they get charged for the visit. Isnt that slick?
Better to spend the money than end up with some serious disease and have it be too late to do anything about it.
Nominal Animal:
If you feel you need an authority to tell you what is true and what is false, be my guest. You will never, ever make me accept such an authority: I will make my own mind.
If you insist that only information vetted by some arbitrary censor is allowed to be disseminated, I will oppose you. It's that simple; free speech is that important. In my own home country, it has already been lost to an alarming degree.
Now, unlike the people who are willing to burn cities because they think a mass-produced object – a book – was mishandled or because they think a court might perhaps make a decision they dislike at some point in the future, I will oppose you with my words and concepts only. I might apply a bit of civil disobedience, but not if it harms or risks harm to you or anyone else.
I am not an enemy, only an opponent. There is a significant difference. If we ever meet face to face, I'll be friendly and happy to meet you.
Am I the only one who has noted the lack of nuance in position in the things discussed in this thread? That somehow, only two possibilities seem to exist? That you either accept the Hunter Biden laptop proves Joe Biden is a crook, or you accept that it is a hoax? Nothing exists in between.
"Either you are with us, or you are an enemy to be utterly destroyed before you destroy us."
There is no more search for the truth via journalism, only a demand that only factually verified non-offensive things should be allowed to be communicated.
That the population should "trust media organizations and journalists to report exclusively on the truth [as] that is their role in society, and we should hold them to it", instead of considering journalism as a tool in discovering what is true and what is not; that it is for the journalists to report, and the readers to evaluate.
Well, I've made my position clear. It also seems clear that either I am in a tiny minority, or cannot express myself in a way that convinces anyone, so :-//.
At least Dave let me voice it out here, so that's a big plus. :-+
cdev:
An opponent?
Does that mean you have opposed everything? That cant be true, its impossible to oppose everything.
nctnico:
--- Quote from: Nominal Animal on May 04, 2022, 06:27:12 pm ---Am I the only one who has noted the lack of nuance in position in the things discussed in this thread? That somehow, only two possibilities seem to exist? That you either accept the Hunter Biden laptop proves Joe Biden is a crook, or you accept that it is a hoax? Nothing exists in between.
"Either you are with us, or you are an enemy to be utterly destroyed before you destroy us."
--- End quote ---
That is what you are making of it. The reality is that the story is simply too thin for any paper to write it on. That should be a very clear sign! If there really was a story, the Republicans would have ran a marathon with it and go for an impeachment. And there is plenty of nuance in this thread but you are simply not seeing it.
MK14:
--- Quote from: Nominal Animal on May 04, 2022, 01:16:26 pm ---Well, what you "acknowledge to be verified/true" is up to you, not up to some "authority" or "fact checker". It is always up to you, the individual.
--- End quote ---
Not exactly, yes and no, if you like.
On the one hand, yes, an individual is responsible, especially if they end up taking action(s) as a result.
But on the other. A particular individual, may well want to spend most of their time doing other things. Work, Hobbies, Entertainment, TV/Movies, Dealing with Family, meals, hygiene and many other things.
Giving themselves, little time to keep up with the current days news. They may even want to sleep or take toilet breaks, sometimes!
A particular individual, may well be highly intelligent, and extremely skilled/knowledgeable in some areas. Perhaps they are a top Doctor. But that wouldn't make them an expert on many other subject areas. For example, could the top Doctor, take 100% control of a troubled airline flight, with one engine burnt out, the other engine, over-heated, smoldering and showing various alert alarms. 45 injured passengers, of 419 (including crew), because of the on-board fire, smoke and other reasons.
Could the top Doctor, drive a formula 1 racing car, to win against several former world champion drivers ?
Maybe the top Doctor could write the firmware, design the PCB, for a complicated electronics project ?
If not, it would be tricky for them to analyse some news items, themselves. Which is why, quality/reliable/trustworthy/truthful news sources, are especially important, for busy people and/or people who are NOT all that interested in the news, anyway.
TL;DR
Some have limited time and interest in the news. But they want a quick, minute or two, of the days headlines/summary of what has occurred.
--- Quote from: Nominal Animal on May 04, 2022, 01:16:26 pm ---Having the right to decide what to believe and think, is the primary human right
--- End quote ---
It is, but properly analyzing it (as I stated, earlier in this post), may exceed the skills, knowledge base and time resources, of the individual, who just wants to see the news, or a quick summary of it.
--- Quote from: Nominal Animal on May 04, 2022, 01:16:26 pm ---Whenever you use Wikipedia as a source, I recommend also looking at the history of the page
--- End quote ---
Wikipedia tends to be (sometimes), merely reasonable as a source (but in many cases, very useful and accurate), rather than outstanding, highly accurate, and other measures of high end quality sources. In some cases, it can be plain wrong, or even edited by people with strong biases, and the wrong reasons, for updated/changing the article(s). Which leads nicely on to my next section:
--- Quote from: Nominal Animal on May 04, 2022, 01:42:28 pm ---Same with the Russian media. I don't want to know what they say because I think they are truthful, I want to know what they say because that describes what the powers that be there want to say
--- End quote ---
Newspapers/TV-channels, and similar news sources. Should be basically truthful and accurate. When, on a very regular basis, they are churning out complete lies. Basically it is part of a huge disinformation and war propaganda machine, for the other side (enemy).
So I can well understand it being banned, in much/all of the West.
You are right, in saying that some (probably rare) individuals. Can digest the information, and generate useful information, by reverse engineering the lying process or something. But, the channel(s)/newspapers/etc, from a practical point of view. Need to either be banned completely or allowed.
So, in the current circumstances (i.e. war(s) have started up), it makes lots of sense to clamp down on such arguably bad information sources.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version