ScouseFox Posted 3 March 2015 Posted 3 March 2015 finally a sensible suggestion thats what im here for, sense and sensibility
Guest MattP Posted 3 March 2015 Posted 3 March 2015 Everything fine apart from the bolded one. The Web could do more for human freedom in oppressed areas than any invention since the bladed weapon. It can also go the other way.
MooseBreath Posted 3 March 2015 Posted 3 March 2015 broader understanding in what sense and who sets the guidelines? Not disagreeing but maybe politicians should have an understanding of issues before being elected. Somebody that has only known and mixed with millionaires and socialites will have little experience of what it is like to live on a low wage and on a council estate. The same could be said visa versa. It would be a very simple factual test. Things like "can you explain how the 'bailout' of RBS worked?" Or "does a person earning minimum wage earn a) considerably more or b) less since the conservatives came to power". Just unbiased facts like that which would prove that somebody at least pays attention to what goes on. Basically to weed out all the populism.
Guest MattP Posted 3 March 2015 Posted 3 March 2015 It would be a very simple factual test. Things like "can you explain how the 'bailout' of RBS worked?" Or "does a person earning minimum wage earn a) considerably more or b) less since the conservatives came to power". Just unbiased facts like that which would prove that somebody at least pays attention to what goes on. Basically to weed out all the populism. Even just one piece of policy from the party they are voting for would be a start.
leicsmac Posted 3 March 2015 Posted 3 March 2015 It can also go the other way. As it can with every other form of information media. It's a step up simply because it hands control of that information dissemination to vastly more people, which pushes up the odds of truth not being able to be covered up. Even just one piece of policy from the party they are voting for would be a start. That I agree with.
Guest MattP Posted 3 March 2015 Posted 3 March 2015 As it can with every other form of information media. It's a step up simply because it hands control of that information dissemination to vastly more people, which pushes up the odds of truth not being able to be covered up. That I agree with. Maybe, although it also increases the chance of a lie being spread. I'll give you an example, this picture below was retweeted or shared just under a million times and saw by about 25 million people, taken as the truth and a complete fabrication - even the BBC or Sky can't lie to that size of audience. The image claims to be from 11 July 2013. There are often fewer MPs in the House on a Thursday. So this image is from the wrong day. it’s not from a debate about pay in 2013. It’s from (obviously packed) Prime Minister’s Questions on 5 September 2012.
leicsmac Posted 3 March 2015 Posted 3 March 2015 Maybe, although it also increases the chance of a lie being spread. I'll give you an example, this picture below was retweeted or shared just under a million times and saw by about 25 million people, taken as the truth and a complete fabrication - even the BBC or Sky can't lie to that size of audience. The image claims to be from 11 July 2013. There are often fewer MPs in the House on a Thursday. So this image is from the wrong day. it’s not from a debate about pay in 2013. It’s from (obviously packed) Prime Minister’s Questions on 5 September 2012. Absolutely, which is why you have to be bloody careful about making sure you check your sources. But again, that's the same with any information media. The mainstream media all have one political agenda or the other, just like the talking heads on the Web. Like the dichotomy of the innocent and guilty - "Better a thousand lies be released than a single truth remain imprisoned". But what the Net does do that those other sources don't do is allow people to communicate and share information where otherwise they wouldn't have the chance. How many Chinese know about what really happened at Tianamen Square in 1988 for instance? Of course the Chinese control of the Web is rather sophisticated but there's ways around that. Without it, so many people may not have known that anything happened there at all.
AndWhat? Posted 4 March 2015 Posted 4 March 2015 The internet is amazing, where else can I watch strippers fighting?
Guest MattP Posted 4 March 2015 Posted 4 March 2015 But what the Net does do that those other sources don't do is allow people to communicate and share information where otherwise they wouldn't have the chance. How many Chinese know about what really happened at Tianamen Square in 1988 for instance? Of course the Chinese control of the Web is rather sophisticated but there's ways around that. Without it, so many people may not have known that anything happened there at all. Haven't you pretty much defeated your own point there? China can control it, didn't they pretty much shut the whole thing down on the Tianamen Square anniversary? I find the information shared on the internet quite worrying, it's alright saying we need to be able to check sources but people simply don't these days, they aren't willing or clever enough, if it's anti something that is a populist opinion people will just believe anything that is thrown in front of them. Here's a quote for you - 'I fear the day that technology will surpass our human interaction. The world will have a generation of idiots'
leicsmac Posted 4 March 2015 Posted 4 March 2015 Haven't you pretty much defeated your own point there? China can control it, didn't they pretty much shut the whole thing down on the Tianamen Square anniversary? I find the information shared on the internet quite worrying, it's alright saying we need to be able to check sources but people simply don't these days, they aren't willing or clever enough, if it's anti something that is a populist opinion people will just believe anything that is thrown in front of them. Here's a quote for you - 'I fear the day that technology will surpass our human interaction. The world will have a generation of idiots' Not really. Anyone with an ounce of sense and a good VPN can see whatever they want in China, and they know it too. Rather than making access to such pieces of information impossible (which is itself impossible because the Government for all their resources will always be one step behind) they just make it difficult enough to be not worth the effort for most who then just buy the party line through State and large privately-owned media. And without the Internet, the possibility wouldn't even be there at all. Which, ironically enough, was the case when information was controlled in the past by a few groups or individuals and what would happen again if the Internet disappeared. I believe in giving people choices, and in terms of being able to access information the Internet has given so much choice. Again, it decentralises information control and therefore power (something I thought you would be in favour of). Of course I'm not in favour of it replacing actual human interaction, but for long distance communication and information access it's a real boon.
Fox92 Posted 4 March 2015 Posted 4 March 2015 Much smaller governments, more direct democracy, but voters must pass tests to prove they have a broad understanding of issues before they're allowed to vote. Said something along these lines myself. Some people moan that I don't vote "you waste a vote" etc but I feel I simply don't know enough about each party to vote.
The God Emperor Posted 4 March 2015 Posted 4 March 2015 have governments ban......themselves (this was the emoti thingy that looked the most like Dale Gribble)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.