said by cairey:LOL this is the most absurd discussion ever. Some of you hold such strong opinions on stupid issues like this, but when things really matter you take the easy way out in lieu of your best interests.
This reply isn't combative: I feel defending broadband is important, to avoid it's going the way of television or cable. The discussion, I think, is about who controls broadband, and whether those who do should wield the right of censure.
This long post will be my only one here. It addresses the content in other posts, and stresses the seriousness of protecting broadband communication from censure for reasons of 'National Security', that could instead prove political.
Local censure problems still need to be resolved. One can easily ruin the career & life of someone who cannot legally reply to libelous posts because of a client's privilege. One can, for example, join 'Yelp' through many aliases and post hateful, libelous accusations. When a colleague in France or India types the name into 'google', for example, the entire first page is then filled with hate. Career over. Reason unknown.
The topic of this thread, however, affects everyone, everywhere.
I could say 95% of the news media on television is one giant censor ... ignoring both sides of the story.By 'news' here, I assume you mean PBS or BBC. I get news by international shortwave instead, because the control of cable is in the hands of few, 'private corporations', that do not appear unbiased.
At the beginning of the Iraq War, I browsed the mid-Eastern newspapers by way of Australia. I can't now remember why now: I hope the US (unlike China) does not have the ability to censure foreign sites. Yes, I have to go outside this country to find out what the US is doing. You're comfortable with this?
... I don't care because they have the right to do so.You mean legal right to select what we are told, because they are 'private corporations'. This thread, I think, is about responsibility, not liability.
... I don't see how anyone could necessarily flame ATT here.I can flame AT&T here for mistakenly assuming it can censor with impunity political opinions within music. (Songs had much more political content in the past.) Is the right to hear or sing (or, in opposition, just hum) such music on broadband, now like forms of political humour in Saturday Night Live, banned for reasons of National Security?
Should (not may) they censure it if it might reduce their ratings, as in the film 'Network' (as I believe you imply). Examine the implications. No.
What if ATT muted it every time someone used "music" or some other pointless word? Would we care then? It's still censorship in some form or another. The only reason anyone cares is because the issue at hand is political ...Yes, now you get it. It is only political censorship I'm concerned about here. Censorship of what our country is doing abroad is adequately performed by cable news.
The same goes on for those of you who are upset over wiretapping. First and foremost the wiretapping is for suspected terrorists, so if you're not one of them you shouldn't care.Oh, but I am. You're not a history buff, I see. We're all terrorist suspects. In the past I contributed to various World-wide charities. Some of this no doubt went to Arab charities of dubious purpose. In the past, I occasionally bought coffee for or guided to a shelter here, a refugee recently arrived from (our) Shah's Iran. By our President's definition (in the Crusade speech, the one after which Northern Ireland surrendered), I'm at least a terrorist suspect, if not a terrorist.
Secondly, even if the government was as maniacal as some of you claim, it's still made up of human beings, none of which really care about what girl you went out with last night.Only J. Edgar Hoover. Maniacal leaders of the past have acquired, by taps, information to 'influence' people in power, and information to create huge black lists of the influential or potentially influential who might oppose the leaders' plans for the future.
For a government that is so incompetent it takes months to get a passport, years to execute a fairly basic war, and has yet to come up with a fix for social security, I don't see why any of you would second-guess issues as stupid as this.Political censure takes many forms, some occurs over broadband.
In 2000, internet e-mail allowed me to immediately report a ballot confusion an elderly friend had just experienced as the polls opened, and was not allowed to correct. I alerted the Governor, Republican Party, Democratic Party, and requested they all send officials & observers to correct these problems, in West Palm Beach, Florida.
In an unrelated incident, I was forced to stop my scientific correspondence with colleagues starting 2002. Every election year since 2000, my e-mail box has been flooded daily with invitations to child pornography sites, perhaps 50 invitations a day, from January to October. Broadband can be abused for political purposes in many ways, which I assumed was the subject of this thread.
Yes, I second-guessed the motive behind AT&T's censure; but can one afford not to?
Thankfully the founding fathers set up our government in such a way that the ideas of democracy and capitalism work.The American Bar Association might beg to differ with you. Broadband must be squeaky clean of political influence if 'democracy and capitalism' is to be protected. That was the concern I read expressed on this "most absurd discussion ever".
