Meh... good topic... zero insight... Some of these TED talks are very high school: The intelligencia and well-connected pontificating about things they often know little about but for some reason think we need their guidance. "We've got a problem that the masses are going to rise up and solve but in some nebulous sort of way..." - good luck with that.
You know what.... honestly i don't think i'd mind if the internet disappeared.
The technology is still here. We'll just rebuild our own networks anew, like we always did. I mean bullatin boards with globally spanning fidonet and all that shit were pretty popular before the internet, when the technology allowed for it they simply arose spontaneously, a kindof Emergence.
The technology is only better now, so the same thing will just keep happening, can't stop it.
Rebecca seems to believe that America is a democracy.
Nations in which almost exclusively wealthy "candidates" worry more about how to raise campaigns funds than issues or constituents, are selected by whomever programs the paperless voting machines, don't really qualify as a democracy.
America, in theory, is supposed to be a "republic". The founding "fathers" believed the masses weren't capable of self government. At the time, before mass communication, that may have been the case.
@smujismuj It is still the case now. Don't fool yourself with pride, their needs to be a guiding hand, or heir will be chaos. If you syill do not see this mess, you are part of the problem. There is more stupidity, more foolishness, at this time on Earth then has ever been, and hopefully never will be again.
No, what people need is a system that works. What people need is good information instead of corporate propaganda. What people need is to relearn what it means to survive. What people need is to get money out of politics, to get religion out of politics, to get fascists out of politics. What people need is to scrap the military industrial complex and create SUSTAINABLE systems.
It is interesting that the knee jerk response to a bad government is that government is bad. We don't need to scrap centralized government, we need to make it transparent and less dependent upon personalities a.k.a. "leaders". We don't need "leaders", we need principles. We need easily understood and common sense laws, as few as possible, that apply equally to all. We need to allow as much personal freedom as possible while still holding all accountable for their actions.
in china is regulating what can be talk on internet... and on FB government do not care about content and what is talk on internet... but FB does, my account was disable few times just because i was politically incorrect. in any case freedom is taken away from us, on one side form government, on on other side by private companies .. so what is worst.. we can guess .. but i do not like both... my freedom is not free ...
It is unfortunate that our technology is enslaved in the service of a monetary system. I advocate a resource based economy as imagined by the Venus Project and Zeitgeist Movement.
the equation is simple - whatever the govt and the rich and powerful do or say - is right and legal, while what others do is legal or illegal/good or bad, as decided by the rich and powerful. democracy, autocracy, communism, capitalism, ...whatever label u apply doesn't matter.
This whole talk is uninspired. Censorship is bad and activism is awesome blahblahblah. It's all superficial, just like her love for democracy and the state.
What? I would agree that her love for democracy and the state is superficial, but censorship and activism? Yeah, we should totally give up our rights to revolt against a government that's doing wrong? Or just sit back and let the government censor as they please? Please explain your position on these things, or are you really just that apathetic?
@TheNewDigital She's an indoctrinated robot. There wasn't a single insightful or even original thought in the entire speech.
Please tell me how activism is working out for you. What have you honestly accomplished, when politicians routinely vote against the public interest? They even use social issues as screens to silently push through economic attacks against the middle class. It's not apathy -- it's acknowledgment of ignorant priorities and inability to see the forest through the trees.
@TheNewDigital Again: how is activism working for you? Are you enjoying your illegal wiretaps? How about that drug war? How are your oceans doing? Deepwater drilling was approved, with no changes to blow-out preventers. Have you wondered why only social issues make progress and with such resistance? Do you think it's a coincidence that every catastrophic economic bill is prefaced with staged bickering over abortion and gay rights?
Name one economic problem that activism has solved.
@PoweredByMagnets Here are ways that activism has made a difference:
1. Civil Rights Movement
2. Woman's Suffrage
3. Gay Rights
4. Child Labor in the US
5. Shortening of US worker days
6. Increased wages for workers
7. Protection laws for workers
Activism works. the results are quick and you dont always win, but when the movement grows large enough, the people win eg Tunisia and Egypt. You don't always win. But you CAN win.
@qthegreat3 Firstly, those aren't economic problems. Honestly though, I think 4, 5, 6, and 7 are detrimental and countries like Japan get along fine without civil rights laws. Gay rights, in particular, are a joke though; they've been used time and time again as a political weapon and a smoke screen to distract you from economic issues.
As for Tunisia and Egypt, perhaps you should pay attention to what's going on over there. It's no coincidence that "activism" occurs
@qthegreat3 The problem is, people see something like don't ask / don't tell overturned and think they've made a giant victory. Do you think the government honestly cares at all? No. They're holding back so they have something to distract you with the next time they want to pass a bank bailout, auto bailout, oil subsidy, healthcare subsidy, war spending, pentagon spending, or tax breaks for rich, while slashing food programs for poor children, social security benefits, etc.
@qthegreat3 So please explain something like the "drug war" to me. Explain why offshore deepwater drilling was allowed again, when no changes have been made to the safety systems. Explain how successful your activism was in stopping the wars. Explain why we only invade countries with oil and minerals. Explain why the public option didn't pass, despite overwhelming public support.
The common denominator is money, and activism is a complete and total failure.
I agree with you, but it's not BAD, you're right though, it probably doesn't work very good. We need REVOLUTION, I'm on your side my friend, believe me, it's disgusting. That being said, it's good to at least know they have some idea of what's going on, and are willing to speak out, even in front of an audience. Wat we need is REVOLUTION, backed up by activism.
@TheNewDigital It really is bad though. She's advocating for more regulation. She never questions that the government is the problem. She's completely obsessed with control and force because she's never lived without it.
The problem I have with "activists" is they never fight for less rules. For example: with proposition 8, they never argued to abolish marriage; instead they want to add rules to give unfair rights to gay people too.
@PoweredByMagnets : That's the dumbest thing I ever heard. Why would Gay rights activist call for less marriage. What do you think gay couple have been doing up until then. If they enjoyed being "life partners" no one was going to force them to get married. However a small percentage of gay couple yearned to validate their relationships as well as their life style through marriage, hences prop 8. Does it mean anything is big world? probably not past the dog and pony of ceremony and paperwork
@squidb8 Firstly, it's not "dumb"; you're just too stupid to comprehend.
With that said, the benefits of marriage discriminate against anyone who is not married: single people, unwed couples, etc. We all pay for every tax break and entitlement married people get, and now gays want them too.
Taking away the absurd and unfair "rights" of married couples is one way to give "equal rights" to gay couples (as well as everyone else). There wouldn't be a debate if we had separated church and state.
@TheNewDigital Also, whenever there's a situation where we DO need more rules, activists are nowhere to be found. BP destroys the coastline and not a single person protests. Instead these idiots throw events like "slutwalk" and think they're making a difference, while being completely blind to real oppression. I'm convinced that people who fight for "social reform" are brain damaged cultural marxists, and these fake accomplishments are honestly a disservice to the community.
@roidroid It's status quo propaganda. She's in love with the government and thinks we need it to "protect" us. More rules. More government. Never stops growing.
Activism never stopped anyone with money. Ground water? Big deal. We're still invading countries with oil and paying defense contractors. We're still authorizing deepwater drilling after the BP spill, despite reports stating the blowout preventers are useless. We're even subsidizing it. Activism is a complete and total failure.
@roidroid I don't think we need to impose our values on private web companies. Don't go crying to big brother when apple censors your app. Go crying to them instead. One of the reasons our economy is in the crapper is because of all this excessive regulation. You didn't hire the right people? Lawsuit. You didn't follow some obscure statute? $500 fine. Enough is enough. End it all.
The part about labor laws was really stupid too. She assumes everyone agrees with her narrow world view.
@roidroid The government encouraged risky loans and bailed everyone out. That's too much regulation, not too little.
I think we need less rules with tort reform too. It makes small business impossible if you require a lawyer and accountant for everything.
The only thing I would want regulated is catastrophic stuff. It doesn't seem like our current legislation even addresses big issues. The fed, wars, and deepwater drilling are still going. We want more nuclear/oil power instead of solar/wind.
In due time, Governments could cease to exists, and Networks provide for themselves. Authority is crumbling. Decentralisation is everywhere. Technology breeds revolution... TED will become a lifestyle.
@doloppost You say it as if ite the next logic step which I think it is,the part you forgot bout is that equality must be taken from the powerful 1st and then spread to the masses,well the powerful will not give up power if possible. Power is an addiction,addiction create illiogical thought and potentially dangerous thought.
@doloppost : Yay: sweet anarchy. Without Government there would be no one to regulate Real Life, I could smash windows, rape children, because there would be no Government to regulate my behavior. There would be maintenance of local infrastructures like bridges, freeways, and power grid.
World is alot more complitcated outside your mom's basement.
@squidb8 Good point. From my mom's basement I'd say laws, retribution and infrastructure of course are needed. I think we'll be having less central solutions for that. Perhaps a city state or even a tribal structure.
@squidb8 However, one with the thoughts of "Oh I'll do this because I can." The very real nature of "that's wrong" is still the general consensus, thus allowing people who rape, kill, steal, or otherwise harm others will be punished in whatever said person harmed deems fit. Society would move on, classless and together, while those who are by nature "bad" will die off. The world is a very complicated place, just because government goes away does not mean infrastructure or life goes away.
@Dblo4445 : Historical evidence contradicts. Unless some entity steps up and take responsibility for common resource, no one will. Look at over fishing, and whaling, for years Governments allowed them to self regulate, and now stock have depleted to a point that catches have to be regulated.
Sure people may keep up with the sidewalk and roads in front of their houses, of course poor neighborhoods would get screwed, but common infrastructure like freeways and bridges would fall into ruin.
we are anonymous, we are aware of the corruption in the world's governments and their apathy for the human lives because of money.
we are aware of the governments' attempt to cover on the news of the rebellions to keep us as slaves for the current system.
we are anonymous, we declare war on the corrupted system, join the plan to get your freedom and rights back. you are a human being, your life has value. we are anonymous, we are legion, expect us!
@PokerJoey888 i thought the message of zeitgeist was that it's perfectly fine to lie for your ideology.
While i approve of many of the messages in it, that documentary really was rather poorly researched, embarrassing really. Rational honest people distance themselves from it.
This video is now part of your internet history. It has been added to what you read, who you know, what you've written and what you buy. Together these things make up an ever growing profile from which:
Advertisers can best judge what and how to sell you.
Possible friends can judge if you are compatible
But most importantly - Government and industrial powers can now evaluate from as early as childhood to gauge those attitudes they perceive as threatening, then surveil and censor accordingly
EVERYONE should remember how after the "Patriot" act, government and industry (telecommunications giants. software makers and computer manufacturers) worked hand in hand to bring all electronic communications under constant scrutiny and control.
"Total Information Awareness" - The monitoring of every aspect of our lives - has only intensified since; all with the stated rational to keep us safe, while easily forgetting what it means to keep us free.
@apocaRUFF The whole premise of this talk is flawed. We need to fix the internet... Hmmm
Fuck that, the internet is fine. Communications is fine, it's the communicators that are the problem. This talk was so irrelevant i disliked it and unless you live in China i don't see why this would be worth watching.
@sdrawkcabgnipytmi Censorship is a problem. People (communicators) lie to use and deceive all the time constantly. However the internet THE most free systems we've ever created (unless you live in china)
@PokerJoey888 It's the Hoards of the ignorant like you that the rest of us are fighting for, often times I wonder why we even bother. If you think you live in the land of the free, you need to unplug your television and try to go learn the truth.
It seems a little silly to state that it was because of the Magna Carta, and the associated ripple affect that enabled the consent of the governed, i.e. the united states to be a democracy, when the Roman republic took place over 2,000 years ago, and Vaisali was almost 3000 years ago. The United States as not the world's first republic, ffs.
You guys ever notice how people with the same name seem to look alike? I'm sure it has some kind of name. But I knew a Rebecca that looked quite similar to this one. They're quite a few years apart, though.
I mean a word that fits for when someone says "Wow, both the Emily's I know look almost exactly alike, and I just met a third Emily who also looks quite similar." I'm sure there is some kind of "scientific" name for it. The occurrence of people with the same name looking similar.
@apocaRUFF I'm pretty sure coincidence is what you're describing, because I'm sure there are who look like those three Emily's, but aren't named Emily and I'm sure there are people who are named Emily but don't look anything like those three Emily's.
Hence the occurence of three Emily's looking alike is a coincidence.
@sexyloser Yes, it is a coincidence, but you're missing the point. Just like there is a name for the experience of feeling sure that one has already witnessed or experienced a current situation, even though the exact circumstances of the previous encounter are uncertain and were perhaps imagined, which is Deja vu, there is also a name for the phenomenon of "noticing" that people with similar names seem to look alike. Even if it's just a feeling that only you get, if it's just n your head.
governments and corporations are definitely a problem, but at least there are SOME ways to improve those things. i think a bigger problem is cyber terrorist hacker groups like Anonymous. they do whatever they want with zero regard for laws or rules or anything. they hide in the cracks and serve their own personal agendas at the expense of the innocent.
Anonymous are not terrorists, i advise you to inform yourself what or who anonymous are. You have been spoonfed with government propaganda from TV.
The internet has been free since its creation and suddenly governments and companies want to control it, this is very wrong. The internet was not created by the governments nor these corporations, those instances are very well profiting from it and now want its full control because it endangers their corrupt system through free speech.
No, you are wrong. I saw it on Fox News. Anonymous are terrorists. There is also a pedophile ring on the internet whose members dress up in strange bear costumes and rape little children.
You are an idiot and a liar, anonymous is anyone, it is a movement without a leader and there are about at least 30'000 members. You are wrong and you don't have a single clue. Fox news has never been right about anything, its propaganda only. Now stop trolling and acting like an idiot. They are no terrorists but activists for freedom and transparency, so next time before you open your mouth, have a can of shut the fuck up!
You are a retarded troll, anonymous brought internet to the people of egypt when their government shut it down. Anonymous is preading news and blowing whistles where the government is corrupt, anonymous is fighting for freedom where idiots like you fail. They are not terrorists because they don't fit the definition of a terrorist. You fail at basic logic (huge crime), just because one of anonymous may have been a pedophile that does not mean everyone is.
You can not conclude from the individual from the group, thats like saying every american is fat, like saying every foxnews reporter is a psyop, like saying everyone named d3st88 is a moron, when there is only one or a few but not all of them like that.
It's amusing how you couldn't differentiate between a joke and serious stupidity. Alright, my work here is done. Consider yourself trolled, you fucking FURRY.
The problem of trolling is that it spreads missinformation and you have been marked as troll in the first post already since you suck at trolling, now go play with mud kiddo. ;)
@todd3293 hey there retarded marionette puppet. they are attacking the real terrorists, you moron. the people that are acting against your interests you retarded idiotic american
interesting, at 5 minutes in she chastises a western company for giving the Egyptians monitoring capability, but her talk is on the liberation of information and how companies censor at their discretion.
Government has no jurisdiction to sensor speech anyway... get up in arms when corperations do it, yes. But dont be a hypocrite, its just as bad (if worse) if governments do it, whether democracy or not...
if we really want to reclaim as it were our sense of free speech on the internet in the face of increasing user charges - lets all just get off the net and meet the neighbor next door - then we might one day hear about a new deal internet providers are offering - but the addiction to technology has been planned and it is now TOTALY IMPOSSIBLE to remove it from human lives -
That is the worst possible solution I have heard. Give up and go back to the dark ages? No thank you. How about trying to fix the problem as it is? I guess that is too practical and reasonable for you.
Rebecca didn't really talk about the enormous invasion of privacy by companies like Facebook & Google that track everything we do on the net and sell info to highest bidders -- or the enormous risk of government surveillance by agencies like the NSA which supposedly has kept vast computer records of all our emails and web activity.
This is great! She's so right don't let the internet be taken over like everything else. I think the reason it has so much potential is because of it's free nature.
This speaker has it a little backwards. The tech companies are not 'new sovereigns' of a new space in which we interact. The tech companies are opening doors that the government wants to keep shut. And the governments demand that the tech companies close certain doors or else face a BAN on the entire product by a violently enforced law. Would she rather the tech company just refuse to listen to governments and get banned so many many doors are closed instead of just the one at hand?
@newexperiment She wants the doors to open and the government to stay out of our business but at the same time acknowledges that a certain level of regulation is needed but determining how much in a democratic society is still problematic.
@JetSetForLife She basically said 'some things are destabalizing for democracy and those should certainly be in need of censorship, but who whould be trusted with the power to censor?". I disagree with her premise. No one should be censoring anything, if some1 wants to say 'kill yourself during the comet and you'll go to a special place of bliss' is it dangerous? Does it have potential negative consequences? Sure.. but centralizing who determines is the wrong way to go. Free market of ideas wins
What you seem to be advocating is appeasement rather than confrontation. That's really a copout as in the Chinese example. Sure they have some freedom but it is a sliding scale on the whim of the goverrnment. Ordinary business people get arrested and that frightens the rest.
Better to look for solutions. One would be to have massive offshore data storage free of government interference. Another would be direct digital streaming from cameras. International treaties?
"And if they had full freedom what could go wrong?"
Is that a rhetorical or a sarcastic question? Either way I don't get your point.
I'm very much in favour of as much freedom as possible but recognise there need to be some limits. It's a question of balance. However, I advocate much more freedom than even liberal governments generally allow. I'm in favour of Wikileaks, Amnesty International, Greenpeace and similar organisations.
@patrickcorliss No it's an honest question actually. This whole balance is best idea isn't sound whatsoever. Why should we agree with you that the healthiest ground is the middle? I can't think of anything that should be regulated on the internet.
The word "balance" was not meant to suggest equal weightings such as can be found in the middle. I thought that was clear when I said I was much more tolerant than the average.
As to what should be banned? Things not acceptable outside the internet. What I think is more problematic is overcoming the propaganda spread by powerful corporate interests, the media and bought politicians.
As I said I'm in favour of Wikileaks and free expression.
@patrickcorliss But then the so called regulations that you might be imagining are nothing more than laws that should exist with or without the internet. Not really regulating the internet but peoples actions to eachother. I.e. don't hack one's computer is just an addition to the don't-go-through-other's-mail law (general privacy) and so on.
Yeah, I'd agree with that. There's nothing special about the internet. It's a data capture, storage and transmission medium just like computers, databases and movies. Normal laws such as piracy or defamation are equally applicable. The real hitch seems to be determining the jurisdiction applicable which is why I raised the issue of international treaties.
But that's a problem for any international organisation trading worldwide.
I think she might have been suggesting that corporate media owners like Rupert Murdoch have so much power across international borders that governments are ill-equipped to control the phenomenon. Although the problem applies to media generally, it is particularly apparent with regard to the internet.
In Canada a broadcasting company requires a licence and one of the conditions is that they must be honest. It seems that Fox News doesn't want to broadcast in Canada because they can't meet that condition. In fact I would go further, any politician that gets voted into office by lying should be arrested for fraud.
Obama said he would close down Gitmo on Day 1 in office. He should have been arrested on Day 2 when he didn't do it. Obtaining a benefit by deception aka fraud.
@patrickcorliss I'd just abolish government. The things government provide and the people government helps (currently) could be provided cheaper and better without government and the people government helps would decrease in number as most of the reason people need help is due to government. Maybe I sound ignorant to you, but you certainly sound ignorant to me. You have so many unstated premises that I couldn't get you to show me any reasons for accepting them.
If SOPA passes you'll have your revolution
MightyKingYoung 1 month ago
after first minutes all i can say is, if you dont like apple, dont use their products.
lamatheapple 2 months ago
interesting ideas, great points... gotta work on that delivery though.
sqbsbear 2 months ago
wonderful
ABESAW 2 months ago
She's correct. The fight has only just begun.
MobRulesNow 3 months ago
Whenever I play TED'S video that does not work after two minutes.
Can anybody tell me why or how should I play it
zaheerahmedkhokhar 4 months ago
This lady needs to watch Zeitgeist : Moving Forward! She would support the movement!
MrThastik 4 months ago
Wonderful talk.
KhadaKuraki 4 months ago
Fuck you, TED, for your obnoxious insensitivity to the thousands of requests for a shorter intro, with lower volume! Fuck you!
ScoreStudy 5 months ago 6
@ScoreStudy
you are retarded,JERK!
obuseng87 5 months ago
Meh... good topic... zero insight... Some of these TED talks are very high school: The intelligencia and well-connected pontificating about things they often know little about but for some reason think we need their guidance. "We've got a problem that the masses are going to rise up and solve but in some nebulous sort of way..." - good luck with that.
TeslaAether 6 months ago
yawning lady in front at12:34
ab001atg 6 months ago
@ab001atg hahaha nice not boring at all. :0&
jeterie 1 week ago
Seems her whole speech was that the internet is not free, but I have no solutions.
Good speech, good speech, it was like watching a cable news program.
squidb8 6 months ago
I love how the internet has allowed people to speak out, rather then ones in power to speak in.
conman2317 6 months ago
You know what.... honestly i don't think i'd mind if the internet disappeared.
The technology is still here. We'll just rebuild our own networks anew, like we always did. I mean bullatin boards with globally spanning fidonet and all that shit were pretty popular before the internet, when the technology allowed for it they simply arose spontaneously, a kindof Emergence.
The technology is only better now, so the same thing will just keep happening, can't stop it.
to quote HomeStuck: MAIL!!!
roidroid 7 months ago
@dude16kh no u
roidroid 7 months ago
This smuggles in totalitarian premises.
richardcadbury 7 months ago
@richardcadbury hmm?
roidroid 7 months ago
@roidroid like the idea the government is allowed to regulate free speech online
richardcadbury 7 months ago
@richardcadbury what... did she endorse that? Where?
roidroid 7 months ago
@roidroid the end
richardcadbury 7 months ago
Consent of the networked FTW!
mobspeak 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Harold Camping was RIGHT about May 21, click on my channel to see...
youneekk 7 months ago
would love to hear talks from Dr Mahathir Mohamad
irazmin2 7 months ago
Rebecca seems to believe that America is a democracy.
Nations in which almost exclusively wealthy "candidates" worry more about how to raise campaigns funds than issues or constituents, are selected by whomever programs the paperless voting machines, don't really qualify as a democracy.
America, in theory, is supposed to be a "republic". The founding "fathers" believed the masses weren't capable of self government. At the time, before mass communication, that may have been the case.
smujismuj 7 months ago
@smujismuj It is still the case now. Don't fool yourself with pride, their needs to be a guiding hand, or heir will be chaos. If you syill do not see this mess, you are part of the problem. There is more stupidity, more foolishness, at this time on Earth then has ever been, and hopefully never will be again.
X7ELI7X 7 months ago
@X7ELI7X
No, what people need is a system that works. What people need is good information instead of corporate propaganda. What people need is to relearn what it means to survive. What people need is to get money out of politics, to get religion out of politics, to get fascists out of politics. What people need is to scrap the military industrial complex and create SUSTAINABLE systems.
smujismuj 7 months ago
It is interesting that the knee jerk response to a bad government is that government is bad. We don't need to scrap centralized government, we need to make it transparent and less dependent upon personalities a.k.a. "leaders". We don't need "leaders", we need principles. We need easily understood and common sense laws, as few as possible, that apply equally to all. We need to allow as much personal freedom as possible while still holding all accountable for their actions.
smujismuj 7 months ago
Steve Jobs is the epitomy of what we should be fighting against.
MrHomeChef 7 months ago
in china is regulating what can be talk on internet... and on FB government do not care about content and what is talk on internet... but FB does, my account was disable few times just because i was politically incorrect. in any case freedom is taken away from us, on one side form government, on on other side by private companies .. so what is worst.. we can guess .. but i do not like both... my freedom is not free ...
galerivs 7 months ago
It is unfortunate that our technology is enslaved in the service of a monetary system. I advocate a resource based economy as imagined by the Venus Project and Zeitgeist Movement.
Lightrider4444 7 months ago
They should censor Rebecca Black and Justin Beiber from the internet.
macreviewer76 7 months ago
@macreviewer76 no they should censor your personal favourite musicians
roidroid 7 months ago
O_O
someguy97815 7 months ago
I will never buy an Apple product.
Go Google, the voice of technological freedom! Android rules!
Silentsam7532 7 months ago
my little government is completely incompetent to do anything. censoring the internet is like visiting jupiter on a bicycle for these people.
kmica2008 7 months ago
Long Live Obama
Long Live The USA
Long Live the United Nations
Fascism Now Fascism FOREVER
putittogether 7 months ago
@putittogether lol
spegree02 7 months ago
ugly ignorant women
OrthodoxLion 7 months ago
Rebecca .......black
themsmproduction 7 months ago
Comment removed
sbagio 7 months ago
@sbagio please elaborate
qttytn 7 months ago
@sbagio In what way?
Bosco239 7 months ago
@sbagio lol Israeli nationalist, no-one respects you
roidroid 7 months ago
@roidroid
Oi broo :) and what respectful country have you run off to Australia from?
sbagio 7 months ago
@sbagio hello
roidroid 7 months ago
steve likes it flat and pumpless, its not a secret..
scuffle 7 months ago
adblock plus is enough for me
MrTheBeast 7 months ago
Free the Internet from the evils of corporatism!!!
Gytu 7 months ago
the equation is simple - whatever the govt and the rich and powerful do or say - is right and legal, while what others do is legal or illegal/good or bad, as decided by the rich and powerful. democracy, autocracy, communism, capitalism, ...whatever label u apply doesn't matter.
yourtube20061 7 months ago
@yourtube20061 Brilliant!
pbezunartea 7 months ago
This whole talk is uninspired. Censorship is bad and activism is awesome blahblahblah. It's all superficial, just like her love for democracy and the state.
PoweredByMagnets 7 months ago
@PoweredByMagnets
What? I would agree that her love for democracy and the state is superficial, but censorship and activism? Yeah, we should totally give up our rights to revolt against a government that's doing wrong? Or just sit back and let the government censor as they please? Please explain your position on these things, or are you really just that apathetic?
TheNewDigital 7 months ago
@TheNewDigital She's an indoctrinated robot. There wasn't a single insightful or even original thought in the entire speech.
Please tell me how activism is working out for you. What have you honestly accomplished, when politicians routinely vote against the public interest? They even use social issues as screens to silently push through economic attacks against the middle class. It's not apathy -- it's acknowledgment of ignorant priorities and inability to see the forest through the trees.
PoweredByMagnets 7 months ago
@PoweredByMagnets
9:45 & 10:53 She honestly thinks we know how to "hold the government accountable".
12:44 Bullshit about labor laws.
12:53 Advocating more rules and regulations, when overhead already accounts for over 12% of our total costs.
The problem obviously isn't internet censorship: it's the government.
PoweredByMagnets 7 months ago
@TheNewDigital Again: how is activism working for you? Are you enjoying your illegal wiretaps? How about that drug war? How are your oceans doing? Deepwater drilling was approved, with no changes to blow-out preventers. Have you wondered why only social issues make progress and with such resistance? Do you think it's a coincidence that every catastrophic economic bill is prefaced with staged bickering over abortion and gay rights?
Name one economic problem that activism has solved.
PoweredByMagnets 7 months ago
@PoweredByMagnets Here are ways that activism has made a difference:
1. Civil Rights Movement
2. Woman's Suffrage
3. Gay Rights
4. Child Labor in the US
5. Shortening of US worker days
6. Increased wages for workers
7. Protection laws for workers
Activism works. the results are quick and you dont always win, but when the movement grows large enough, the people win eg Tunisia and Egypt. You don't always win. But you CAN win.
qthegreat3 7 months ago
@qthegreat3 Firstly, those aren't economic problems. Honestly though, I think 4, 5, 6, and 7 are detrimental and countries like Japan get along fine without civil rights laws. Gay rights, in particular, are a joke though; they've been used time and time again as a political weapon and a smoke screen to distract you from economic issues.
As for Tunisia and Egypt, perhaps you should pay attention to what's going on over there. It's no coincidence that "activism" occurs
PoweredByMagnets 7 months ago
@qthegreat3 The problem is, people see something like don't ask / don't tell overturned and think they've made a giant victory. Do you think the government honestly cares at all? No. They're holding back so they have something to distract you with the next time they want to pass a bank bailout, auto bailout, oil subsidy, healthcare subsidy, war spending, pentagon spending, or tax breaks for rich, while slashing food programs for poor children, social security benefits, etc.
PoweredByMagnets 7 months ago
@qthegreat3 So please explain something like the "drug war" to me. Explain why offshore deepwater drilling was allowed again, when no changes have been made to the safety systems. Explain how successful your activism was in stopping the wars. Explain why we only invade countries with oil and minerals. Explain why the public option didn't pass, despite overwhelming public support.
The common denominator is money, and activism is a complete and total failure.
PoweredByMagnets 7 months ago
@qthegreat3 You see what you done there was you pwned that bitch, but he refused to admit that he has been PWNed.
Bosco239 7 months ago
@PoweredByMagnets
I agree with you, but it's not BAD, you're right though, it probably doesn't work very good. We need REVOLUTION, I'm on your side my friend, believe me, it's disgusting. That being said, it's good to at least know they have some idea of what's going on, and are willing to speak out, even in front of an audience. Wat we need is REVOLUTION, backed up by activism.
TheNewDigital 7 months ago
@TheNewDigital It really is bad though. She's advocating for more regulation. She never questions that the government is the problem. She's completely obsessed with control and force because she's never lived without it.
The problem I have with "activists" is they never fight for less rules. For example: with proposition 8, they never argued to abolish marriage; instead they want to add rules to give unfair rights to gay people too.
PoweredByMagnets 7 months ago
@PoweredByMagnets : That's the dumbest thing I ever heard. Why would Gay rights activist call for less marriage. What do you think gay couple have been doing up until then. If they enjoyed being "life partners" no one was going to force them to get married. However a small percentage of gay couple yearned to validate their relationships as well as their life style through marriage, hences prop 8. Does it mean anything is big world? probably not past the dog and pony of ceremony and paperwork
squidb8 6 months ago
@squidb8 Firstly, it's not "dumb"; you're just too stupid to comprehend.
With that said, the benefits of marriage discriminate against anyone who is not married: single people, unwed couples, etc. We all pay for every tax break and entitlement married people get, and now gays want them too.
Taking away the absurd and unfair "rights" of married couples is one way to give "equal rights" to gay couples (as well as everyone else). There wouldn't be a debate if we had separated church and state.
PoweredByMagnets 6 months ago
@TheNewDigital Also, whenever there's a situation where we DO need more rules, activists are nowhere to be found. BP destroys the coastline and not a single person protests. Instead these idiots throw events like "slutwalk" and think they're making a difference, while being completely blind to real oppression. I'm convinced that people who fight for "social reform" are brain damaged cultural marxists, and these fake accomplishments are honestly a disservice to the community.
PoweredByMagnets 7 months ago
@PoweredByMagnets i dunno man, the things you're disproving of seem kinda tangential and petty compared to the topic of this talk.
roidroid 7 months ago
@roidroid It's status quo propaganda. She's in love with the government and thinks we need it to "protect" us. More rules. More government. Never stops growing.
Activism never stopped anyone with money. Ground water? Big deal. We're still invading countries with oil and paying defense contractors. We're still authorizing deepwater drilling after the BP spill, despite reports stating the blowout preventers are useless. We're even subsidizing it. Activism is a complete and total failure.
PoweredByMagnets 7 months ago
@roidroid I don't think we need to impose our values on private web companies. Don't go crying to big brother when apple censors your app. Go crying to them instead. One of the reasons our economy is in the crapper is because of all this excessive regulation. You didn't hire the right people? Lawsuit. You didn't follow some obscure statute? $500 fine. Enough is enough. End it all.
The part about labor laws was really stupid too. She assumes everyone agrees with her narrow world view.
PoweredByMagnets 7 months ago
@PoweredByMagnets but i thought the recession was all caused by the subprime mortgage crisis: ie: not enough regulation.
Yeah Tort-reform IS a good idea though, well technically a lot of shit needs a good hard reformin'.
I've been reading a little about intellectual property lately, urgh what a status-quo serving clusterfuck that seems to be.
roidroid 7 months ago
@roidroid The government encouraged risky loans and bailed everyone out. That's too much regulation, not too little.
I think we need less rules with tort reform too. It makes small business impossible if you require a lawyer and accountant for everything.
The only thing I would want regulated is catastrophic stuff. It doesn't seem like our current legislation even addresses big issues. The fed, wars, and deepwater drilling are still going. We want more nuclear/oil power instead of solar/wind.
PoweredByMagnets 7 months ago
In due time, Governments could cease to exists, and Networks provide for themselves. Authority is crumbling. Decentralisation is everywhere. Technology breeds revolution... TED will become a lifestyle.
doloppost 7 months ago 39
@doloppost Well said. I hope.. no, belive so too.
vesji 7 months ago
@doloppost You say it as if ite the next logic step which I think it is,the part you forgot bout is that equality must be taken from the powerful 1st and then spread to the masses,well the powerful will not give up power if possible. Power is an addiction,addiction create illiogical thought and potentially dangerous thought.
Proteus6684 7 months ago
@doloppost : Yay: sweet anarchy. Without Government there would be no one to regulate Real Life, I could smash windows, rape children, because there would be no Government to regulate my behavior. There would be maintenance of local infrastructures like bridges, freeways, and power grid.
World is alot more complitcated outside your mom's basement.
squidb8 6 months ago
@squidb8 Good point. From my mom's basement I'd say laws, retribution and infrastructure of course are needed. I think we'll be having less central solutions for that. Perhaps a city state or even a tribal structure.
doloppost 6 months ago
@squidb8 However, one with the thoughts of "Oh I'll do this because I can." The very real nature of "that's wrong" is still the general consensus, thus allowing people who rape, kill, steal, or otherwise harm others will be punished in whatever said person harmed deems fit. Society would move on, classless and together, while those who are by nature "bad" will die off. The world is a very complicated place, just because government goes away does not mean infrastructure or life goes away.
Dblo4445 5 months ago
@Dblo4445 : Historical evidence contradicts. Unless some entity steps up and take responsibility for common resource, no one will. Look at over fishing, and whaling, for years Governments allowed them to self regulate, and now stock have depleted to a point that catches have to be regulated.
Sure people may keep up with the sidewalk and roads in front of their houses, of course poor neighborhoods would get screwed, but common infrastructure like freeways and bridges would fall into ruin.
squidb8 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
we are anonymous, we are aware of the corruption in the world's governments and their apathy for the human lives because of money.
we are aware of the governments' attempt to cover on the news of the rebellions to keep us as slaves for the current system.
we are anonymous, we declare war on the corrupted system, join the plan to get your freedom and rights back. you are a human being, your life has value. we are anonymous, we are legion, expect us!
whatis-theplan(dot)org
Constantine909 7 months ago 17
@Constantine909 LOL youre a faggot
xBuriedalive 7 months ago
@Constantine909 You're not anonymous, you're constantine909!
CymroGoch 6 months ago
a waste. THIS OFFERED NO NOW, TO DO THIS.
b29349 7 months ago
@brucebannerization
"Develop a GIGO profile; improvise."
Wouldn't you agree that freedom of expression should not require such devices or improvisation?
BeondaPale 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
America is not a democracy. Its a republic!
termix85 7 months ago
@socalfive Dude STFU, You think fixing the internet is more important than an RBE? Fine but i think you missed the message of zeitgeist.
Arrogant twat
PokerJoey888 7 months ago
@PokerJoey888 i thought the message of zeitgeist was that it's perfectly fine to lie for your ideology.
While i approve of many of the messages in it, that documentary really was rather poorly researched, embarrassing really. Rational honest people distance themselves from it.
roidroid 7 months ago
@roidroid you subscribe to em
PokerJoey888 7 months ago
@PokerJoey888 pardon?
roidroid 7 months ago
This video is now part of your internet history. It has been added to what you read, who you know, what you've written and what you buy. Together these things make up an ever growing profile from which:
Advertisers can best judge what and how to sell you.
Possible friends can judge if you are compatible
But most importantly - Government and industrial powers can now evaluate from as early as childhood to gauge those attitudes they perceive as threatening, then surveil and censor accordingly
BeondaPale 7 months ago
@BeondaPale
EVERYONE should remember how after the "Patriot" act, government and industry (telecommunications giants. software makers and computer manufacturers) worked hand in hand to bring all electronic communications under constant scrutiny and control.
"Total Information Awareness" - The monitoring of every aspect of our lives - has only intensified since; all with the stated rational to keep us safe, while easily forgetting what it means to keep us free.
BeondaPale 7 months ago
One of the worst Ted talks i've seen
PokerJoey888 7 months ago
@PokerJoey888 How does it feel to have failed so miserably?
apocaRUFF 7 months ago
@apocaRUFF The whole premise of this talk is flawed. We need to fix the internet... Hmmm
Fuck that, the internet is fine. Communications is fine, it's the communicators that are the problem. This talk was so irrelevant i disliked it and unless you live in China i don't see why this would be worth watching.
PokerJoey888 7 months ago
@PokerJoey888
So internet censorship in China is not a problem?
And how exactly are communicators the problem?
sdrawkcabgnipytmi 7 months ago
@sdrawkcabgnipytmi Censorship is a problem. People (communicators) lie to use and deceive all the time constantly. However the internet THE most free systems we've ever created (unless you live in china)
Understand?
PokerJoey888 7 months ago
@PokerJoey888 It's the Hoards of the ignorant like you that the rest of us are fighting for, often times I wonder why we even bother. If you think you live in the land of the free, you need to unplug your television and try to go learn the truth.
socalfive 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Calling all youtubers! WE NEED YOUR HELP!
As part of a university project, we need to get 500 "likes" so we need your help.
Simply...
search... "team 24 smartpark" (its the first video)
& "Like" our video :)
THANK YOU in advance! :)
Also, if you can, please forward this video to all you know (subscribers, friends on youtube etc.) and get them to "like" the video :)
Thank you again! we cant do it without you!
elmo13ts 7 months ago
Authoritarian regimes like the US Government which has ask app to censor apps that alert people to police checkpoints in their area.
benjaminbartholomew 7 months ago 5
Wow, this batch of TED talks is reminding me why I subscribed
xinlo 7 months ago
12:28, LMAO! @ the sleeping audience member in the front row.
takigan 7 months ago
its a miracle, a woman that holds a good, useful talk
Finiras 7 months ago
It seems a little silly to state that it was because of the Magna Carta, and the associated ripple affect that enabled the consent of the governed, i.e. the united states to be a democracy, when the Roman republic took place over 2,000 years ago, and Vaisali was almost 3000 years ago. The United States as not the world's first republic, ffs.
kkasajian 7 months ago
The internet belongs to the people and is free, get the governments out of the internet...
leechmasterb 7 months ago 3
at least someone gets it
thatdutchguy89 7 months ago
You guys ever notice how people with the same name seem to look alike? I'm sure it has some kind of name. But I knew a Rebecca that looked quite similar to this one. They're quite a few years apart, though.
apocaRUFF 7 months ago
@apocaRUFF Yes, the word you're looking for is "coincidence."
sexyloser 7 months ago
@sexyloser I don't think it is, good try though.
I mean a word that fits for when someone says "Wow, both the Emily's I know look almost exactly alike, and I just met a third Emily who also looks quite similar." I'm sure there is some kind of "scientific" name for it. The occurrence of people with the same name looking similar.
apocaRUFF 7 months ago
@apocaRUFF I'm pretty sure coincidence is what you're describing, because I'm sure there are who look like those three Emily's, but aren't named Emily and I'm sure there are people who are named Emily but don't look anything like those three Emily's.
Hence the occurence of three Emily's looking alike is a coincidence.
sexyloser 7 months ago
@sexyloser Yes, it is a coincidence, but you're missing the point. Just like there is a name for the experience of feeling sure that one has already witnessed or experienced a current situation, even though the exact circumstances of the previous encounter are uncertain and were perhaps imagined, which is Deja vu, there is also a name for the phenomenon of "noticing" that people with similar names seem to look alike. Even if it's just a feeling that only you get, if it's just n your head.
apocaRUFF 7 months ago
@apocaRUFF you mean like this? watch?v=b_6-iVz1R0o
roidroid 7 months ago
@sexyloser Sorry, my bad. I meant to say "'noticing' that people with same names", not "'noticing' that people with similar names".
apocaRUFF 7 months ago
governments and corporations are definitely a problem, but at least there are SOME ways to improve those things. i think a bigger problem is cyber terrorist hacker groups like Anonymous. they do whatever they want with zero regard for laws or rules or anything. they hide in the cracks and serve their own personal agendas at the expense of the innocent.
todd3293 7 months ago
@todd3293
Anonymous are not terrorists, i advise you to inform yourself what or who anonymous are. You have been spoonfed with government propaganda from TV.
The internet has been free since its creation and suddenly governments and companies want to control it, this is very wrong. The internet was not created by the governments nor these corporations, those instances are very well profiting from it and now want its full control because it endangers their corrupt system through free speech.
leechmasterb 7 months ago
@leechmasterb
No, you are wrong. I saw it on Fox News. Anonymous are terrorists. There is also a pedophile ring on the internet whose members dress up in strange bear costumes and rape little children.
Here's the proof:
watch?v=NbunJjifLRE
d3st88 7 months ago
@d3st88
You are an idiot and a liar, anonymous is anyone, it is a movement without a leader and there are about at least 30'000 members. You are wrong and you don't have a single clue. Fox news has never been right about anything, its propaganda only. Now stop trolling and acting like an idiot. They are no terrorists but activists for freedom and transparency, so next time before you open your mouth, have a can of shut the fuck up!
leechmasterb 7 months ago
@leechmasterb
You are one of those pedophile bears, aren't you, you sick bastard?
BRB FBI.
d3st88 7 months ago
@d3st88
You are a retarded troll, anonymous brought internet to the people of egypt when their government shut it down. Anonymous is preading news and blowing whistles where the government is corrupt, anonymous is fighting for freedom where idiots like you fail. They are not terrorists because they don't fit the definition of a terrorist. You fail at basic logic (huge crime), just because one of anonymous may have been a pedophile that does not mean everyone is.
leechmasterb 7 months ago
@leechmasterb
You kiddyfucker.
d3st88 7 months ago
@d3st88
You can not conclude from the individual from the group, thats like saying every american is fat, like saying every foxnews reporter is a psyop, like saying everyone named d3st88 is a moron, when there is only one or a few but not all of them like that.
Now stop trolling and get a life.
leechmasterb 7 months ago
@leechmasterb
Wait a minute. Aren't all americans fat?
d3st88 7 months ago
@d3st88
I am sure you like being able to use your computer, we wouldn't want anything happening to it, right?
leechmasterb 7 months ago
@d3st88 that's what a lady from Florida told me
dasgroovey 7 months ago
@d3st88
Now before you continue with your logical fallacies and propaganda (you heard from fox) spewing, this is what anonymous is: watch?v=IHEqEE5rAxg
leechmasterb 7 months ago
@leechmasterb
It's amusing how you couldn't differentiate between a joke and serious stupidity. Alright, my work here is done. Consider yourself trolled, you fucking FURRY.
d3st88 7 months ago
@d3st88
The problem of trolling is that it spreads missinformation and you have been marked as troll in the first post already since you suck at trolling, now go play with mud kiddo. ;)
leechmasterb 7 months ago
@todd3293 hey there retarded marionette puppet. they are attacking the real terrorists, you moron. the people that are acting against your interests you retarded idiotic american
Finiras 7 months ago
@todd3293 anonymous blew up my van!
roidroid 7 months ago
interesting, at 5 minutes in she chastises a western company for giving the Egyptians monitoring capability, but her talk is on the liberation of information and how companies censor at their discretion.
wetkenny 7 months ago
@wetkenny i don't get your link. can you try to explain again?
roidroid 7 months ago
A great speaker with a great point. I thoroughly enjoyed every moment. Thanks for putting our situation into context
getupanddosomething 7 months ago
Government has no jurisdiction to sensor speech anyway... get up in arms when corperations do it, yes. But dont be a hypocrite, its just as bad (if worse) if governments do it, whether democracy or not...
Firestryke2 7 months ago
This woman is awesome.
thegoodrodgarrett 7 months ago
Mac user, but not proud of this.
revesvans 7 months ago
if we really want to reclaim as it were our sense of free speech on the internet in the face of increasing user charges - lets all just get off the net and meet the neighbor next door - then we might one day hear about a new deal internet providers are offering - but the addiction to technology has been planned and it is now TOTALY IMPOSSIBLE to remove it from human lives -
dasgroovey 7 months ago
@dasgroovey
That is the worst possible solution I have heard. Give up and go back to the dark ages? No thank you. How about trying to fix the problem as it is? I guess that is too practical and reasonable for you.
bayouboyy 7 months ago
@bayouboyy tell me another solution - this stuff has been going on since we crawled out of caves - now we have remote
dasgroovey 7 months ago
@dasgroovey dont tuch my internetz dude!
AsgardProductionsSE 7 months ago
@dasgroovey >"the addiction to technology has been planned"
i see zero evidence of this grand claim, and thus write off your opinion as yet another paranoid delusional tinfoil hatter.
I mean what on earth are you basing this on.
roidroid 7 months ago
I claim HONESTY over free speech and thats my free speech
dasgroovey 7 months ago
Avaaz(.)com has actions for saving the net in Fance and Italy.
These guys have had results in the past - join in!
akylae101 7 months ago
Rebecca didn't really talk about the enormous invasion of privacy by companies like Facebook & Google that track everything we do on the net and sell info to highest bidders -- or the enormous risk of government surveillance by agencies like the NSA which supposedly has kept vast computer records of all our emails and web activity.
Even our phones are tracking us now.
Very scary.
goog2k 7 months ago
@goog2k freedom, right!
dasgroovey 7 months ago
lol anybody see the sleeping guy in the front row, right of the speaker, at 12:28
GeekProdigyGuy 7 months ago 2
good speech but i could have told it in 5 mins
hockey2hockey 7 months ago
This is great! She's so right don't let the internet be taken over like everything else. I think the reason it has so much potential is because of it's free nature.
Shaunt1 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TLSlayer1 your comment shows you are extremly intelligent
ZLi0n 7 months ago
This speaker has it a little backwards. The tech companies are not 'new sovereigns' of a new space in which we interact. The tech companies are opening doors that the government wants to keep shut. And the governments demand that the tech companies close certain doors or else face a BAN on the entire product by a violently enforced law. Would she rather the tech company just refuse to listen to governments and get banned so many many doors are closed instead of just the one at hand?
newexperiment 7 months ago
@newexperiment She wants the doors to open and the government to stay out of our business but at the same time acknowledges that a certain level of regulation is needed but determining how much in a democratic society is still problematic.
JetSetForLife 7 months ago
@JetSetForLife Example of a needed regulation would be?
newexperiment 7 months ago
@newexperiment She touches on the subject starting at 6:00 did you watch the video?
JetSetForLife 7 months ago
@JetSetForLife She basically said 'some things are destabalizing for democracy and those should certainly be in need of censorship, but who whould be trusted with the power to censor?". I disagree with her premise. No one should be censoring anything, if some1 wants to say 'kill yourself during the comet and you'll go to a special place of bliss' is it dangerous? Does it have potential negative consequences? Sure.. but centralizing who determines is the wrong way to go. Free market of ideas wins
newexperiment 7 months ago
@newexperiment
What you seem to be advocating is appeasement rather than confrontation. That's really a copout as in the Chinese example. Sure they have some freedom but it is a sliding scale on the whim of the goverrnment. Ordinary business people get arrested and that frightens the rest.
Better to look for solutions. One would be to have massive offshore data storage free of government interference. Another would be direct digital streaming from cameras. International treaties?
patrickcorliss 7 months ago
@patrickcorliss And if they had full freedom what could go wrong?
newexperiment 7 months ago
@newexperiment
"And if they had full freedom what could go wrong?"
Is that a rhetorical or a sarcastic question? Either way I don't get your point.
I'm very much in favour of as much freedom as possible but recognise there need to be some limits. It's a question of balance. However, I advocate much more freedom than even liberal governments generally allow. I'm in favour of Wikileaks, Amnesty International, Greenpeace and similar organisations.
patrickcorliss 7 months ago
@patrickcorliss No it's an honest question actually. This whole balance is best idea isn't sound whatsoever. Why should we agree with you that the healthiest ground is the middle? I can't think of anything that should be regulated on the internet.
newexperiment 7 months ago
@newexperiment
The word "balance" was not meant to suggest equal weightings such as can be found in the middle. I thought that was clear when I said I was much more tolerant than the average.
As to what should be banned? Things not acceptable outside the internet. What I think is more problematic is overcoming the propaganda spread by powerful corporate interests, the media and bought politicians.
As I said I'm in favour of Wikileaks and free expression.
patrickcorliss 7 months ago
@patrickcorliss But then the so called regulations that you might be imagining are nothing more than laws that should exist with or without the internet. Not really regulating the internet but peoples actions to eachother. I.e. don't hack one's computer is just an addition to the don't-go-through-other's-mail law (general privacy) and so on.
newexperiment 7 months ago
@newexperiment
Yeah, I'd agree with that. There's nothing special about the internet. It's a data capture, storage and transmission medium just like computers, databases and movies. Normal laws such as piracy or defamation are equally applicable. The real hitch seems to be determining the jurisdiction applicable which is why I raised the issue of international treaties.
But that's a problem for any international organisation trading worldwide.
patrickcorliss 7 months ago
@patrickcorliss right, which brings me to my point, Why is the speaker talking about the internet? It's governments that need to change.
newexperiment 7 months ago
@newexperiment
I think she might have been suggesting that corporate media owners like Rupert Murdoch have so much power across international borders that governments are ill-equipped to control the phenomenon. Although the problem applies to media generally, it is particularly apparent with regard to the internet.
patrickcorliss 7 months ago
@patrickcorliss What would governments control if they were equipped enough to do so? and would that be a good thing?
newexperiment 7 months ago
@newexperiment
In Canada a broadcasting company requires a licence and one of the conditions is that they must be honest. It seems that Fox News doesn't want to broadcast in Canada because they can't meet that condition. In fact I would go further, any politician that gets voted into office by lying should be arrested for fraud.
Obama said he would close down Gitmo on Day 1 in office. He should have been arrested on Day 2 when he didn't do it. Obtaining a benefit by deception aka fraud.
patrickcorliss 7 months ago
@patrickcorliss I'd just abolish government. The things government provide and the people government helps (currently) could be provided cheaper and better without government and the people government helps would decrease in number as most of the reason people need help is due to government. Maybe I sound ignorant to you, but you certainly sound ignorant to me. You have so many unstated premises that I couldn't get you to show me any reasons for accepting them.
newexperiment 5 months ago
the only legitimate purpose of government is to serve citizens ....
kckong3 7 months ago
Excellent talk.
kaminarigaston 7 months ago
The Pirate Party, fighting for internet freedom!
LudicrousTachyon 7 months ago