I didn't really listen closely to this news. There is some kind of workshop or think tank about Facebook and other social media. The headline I did hear was about " monitoring " what was posted. The issue being fake news or altered pictures/videos. The example used was that one of Nancy Pelosi that had be altered slightly to make her appear drunk during a speech. What I heard was advocating for limiting freedom of speech. That is my impression anyway. Whereas I agree with the outrage over this fake news stuff I also believe it has to be tolerated. You can't have a free press or free speech while imposing censorship! I think, just as in buying any product, caveat emptor applies. In short, don't believe everything you hear or read. In the modern world you do have to add see to that equation. Yes videos are compelling things, seeing is believing, but you have to be aware that isn't always so. It does complicate things though I won't deny that.
I understand the problem. Now just what to do about it I haven't a clue. How do you get people to act in an honest and forthright way? In other words, to exercise moral and ethical behaviors and practices. Sounds like a religion doesn't it? So that being established, our government guaranteed there would be no establishment of religion in our legislation, what do we do? Ah, a bit of a sticky wicker wouldn't you say? The first amendment established the right to free speech and specifically says it shall not be abridged! Abridged means, shortened. Therefore what they are saying is I can speak all I want. We have established standards for libel and slander, very strict standards. That's why you seldom hear of anyone winning such a case. You really can't sue someone over their opinion. Injury must be proven, not hurt feelings. The business of Government is not conducted on emotion, but on law. We the people, and by extension our legislators, create law based on emotion at times. But what you have to understand is the government has no emotion, only law. Government should be like a stern parent, concerned for the welfare of its' children but not permissive of bad behaviors either. Our government has no authority to tell you to shut up! We do get to talk back.
The fact is " news " has always been subjective. It really depends upon who is doing the reporting. In years past it was Newspapers that were the primary spreader of the news. There were, and still are, newspapers that are biased. Years back some papers were very open about that including the word Republican or Democrat in their name! And that is the way that paper leaned and everyone was aware of that. A great deal of that depended upon the financing of that enterprise. Just follow the money has always been applicable. With television news it became a battle of ratings, ie: revenue. I don't think that is the case with social media however. I think it is becoming a battle of control. Getting the ear of the general public is of paramount importance. That's what campaigns are all about! And as we draw closer to the next general election many are getting nervous. We need to control what is being said! So in today's world that means social media outlets. We need to figure out a method to curb all this free speech!
I liken it to this trend to just rename things. Take this term, hate speech. Just what does that mean? It is nothing more than someone saying they don't like something. Hate is far more forceful, more sinister. That's what we will call any disent from now on, hate! The same applies to terminating a pregnancy. We'll call reproductive health care. That's sounds benevolent, indeed compassionate, a right! What it really does is kill a baby. Oh you will hear it isn't a baby! Well if it isn't why would you have a baby if you didn't terminate it? A paradox? Not to me it isn't. It's crystal clear. What are we going to call it? That's what the conference is all about. How to spin this one. We now have assault rifles. The fault lies with the rifle not the person using it. The rifles are assaulting people! We can ban those, we'll get around to pistols later on. But this negative press, what are we gonna do about it? We can't have people just posting whatever they like. It's a problem.
As I said I don't have any answers for that problem. People distort the truth, lie, attempt to deceive and misdirect each other all the time. They always have and always will. As far as social media goes to me it is just a platform to express my opinions, post my pictures and videos for my own amusement. Hopefully others find it entertaining. It is sorta like having a million pen pals that you can communicate with instantly. I don't view Facebook or any social media platform as an authority! For that reason I don't believe everything that is posted, whether written, pictures or videos. If anything Facebook has increased my skepticism on most things of a political nature. I am concerned when they start convening conferences to curb freedom of speech. The only censorship I agree with is self imposed. I am thankful for that option on Facebook. If I start seeing things I don't like or agree with, I just block it! That's my choice. Can we reasonably expect everyone to censor themselves? Well, like I said, that's a product of religious belief. It isn't and shouldn't be a function of government. Perhaps if we regained our moral compass these issues wouldn't exist at all. Isn't that a wonderful dream, the American dream.
I understand the problem. Now just what to do about it I haven't a clue. How do you get people to act in an honest and forthright way? In other words, to exercise moral and ethical behaviors and practices. Sounds like a religion doesn't it? So that being established, our government guaranteed there would be no establishment of religion in our legislation, what do we do? Ah, a bit of a sticky wicker wouldn't you say? The first amendment established the right to free speech and specifically says it shall not be abridged! Abridged means, shortened. Therefore what they are saying is I can speak all I want. We have established standards for libel and slander, very strict standards. That's why you seldom hear of anyone winning such a case. You really can't sue someone over their opinion. Injury must be proven, not hurt feelings. The business of Government is not conducted on emotion, but on law. We the people, and by extension our legislators, create law based on emotion at times. But what you have to understand is the government has no emotion, only law. Government should be like a stern parent, concerned for the welfare of its' children but not permissive of bad behaviors either. Our government has no authority to tell you to shut up! We do get to talk back.
The fact is " news " has always been subjective. It really depends upon who is doing the reporting. In years past it was Newspapers that were the primary spreader of the news. There were, and still are, newspapers that are biased. Years back some papers were very open about that including the word Republican or Democrat in their name! And that is the way that paper leaned and everyone was aware of that. A great deal of that depended upon the financing of that enterprise. Just follow the money has always been applicable. With television news it became a battle of ratings, ie: revenue. I don't think that is the case with social media however. I think it is becoming a battle of control. Getting the ear of the general public is of paramount importance. That's what campaigns are all about! And as we draw closer to the next general election many are getting nervous. We need to control what is being said! So in today's world that means social media outlets. We need to figure out a method to curb all this free speech!
I liken it to this trend to just rename things. Take this term, hate speech. Just what does that mean? It is nothing more than someone saying they don't like something. Hate is far more forceful, more sinister. That's what we will call any disent from now on, hate! The same applies to terminating a pregnancy. We'll call reproductive health care. That's sounds benevolent, indeed compassionate, a right! What it really does is kill a baby. Oh you will hear it isn't a baby! Well if it isn't why would you have a baby if you didn't terminate it? A paradox? Not to me it isn't. It's crystal clear. What are we going to call it? That's what the conference is all about. How to spin this one. We now have assault rifles. The fault lies with the rifle not the person using it. The rifles are assaulting people! We can ban those, we'll get around to pistols later on. But this negative press, what are we gonna do about it? We can't have people just posting whatever they like. It's a problem.
As I said I don't have any answers for that problem. People distort the truth, lie, attempt to deceive and misdirect each other all the time. They always have and always will. As far as social media goes to me it is just a platform to express my opinions, post my pictures and videos for my own amusement. Hopefully others find it entertaining. It is sorta like having a million pen pals that you can communicate with instantly. I don't view Facebook or any social media platform as an authority! For that reason I don't believe everything that is posted, whether written, pictures or videos. If anything Facebook has increased my skepticism on most things of a political nature. I am concerned when they start convening conferences to curb freedom of speech. The only censorship I agree with is self imposed. I am thankful for that option on Facebook. If I start seeing things I don't like or agree with, I just block it! That's my choice. Can we reasonably expect everyone to censor themselves? Well, like I said, that's a product of religious belief. It isn't and shouldn't be a function of government. Perhaps if we regained our moral compass these issues wouldn't exist at all. Isn't that a wonderful dream, the American dream.
No comments:
Post a Comment