The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
This is what real CENSORSHIP and Oppression Looks Like...
Old 24th August 2012
  #91
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
The fact you ignore financial manipulation on the internet is deeply naive.
I already told you, people are paid a fee to make supposedly personal tweets.
At least traditional broadcast is heavily scrutinized and legislated, and we can experience Russian TV, the BBC, PBS, Fox and Al jezeera and come to a balanced view based on all angles.
Bought bias on the net is at present unknown and insidious.
Dude, I know.

If you go back and read my posts, you'll see that I plainly concede that untoward **** abounds on the internet.

But the difference between the internet and television is that the internet offers the chance for actual free and open news, where you can have random civilians broadcasting live footage from all over the world (which happens abundantly).

If you (as in the general "you") wanna see what the war in Afghanistan is really like, then you need to turn off your TV and consult the internet. Everything is available. It's a much more comprehensive way to get news.

I really thought the benefits of the internet (vis-a-vis "mainstream media") would be self-evident, but whatever...
Old 24th August 2012
  #92
Quote:
Originally Posted by LimpyLoo View Post
I really thought the benefits of the internet (vis-a-vis "mainstream media") would be self-evident, but whatever...
Yes, I think I'm just pointing out that with benefits also come caveats.
For example, when my local broadcaster shows YouTube footage from Syria, they clearly state, the veracity of this footage can not be confirmed.
Mainstream broadcast has it's faults, but at least WYSIWYG. You can clearly inform yourself who pays for what, who is controlling the editorial direction.
On the net, you think you know who someone is, then you find out you don't.
Like the blogger: 'Gay Girl in Damascus', who turned out to be a caucasian man living in the UK. And The Washington Post was one of the first media organisations to figure that out!
Old 24th August 2012
  #93
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
... unknown and insidious.
As opposed to where it's known and sidious? Where is that?

You're talking about a catch-all suspicion that can include everything, everywhere. Surely there are some big differences between the heavy-duty filters that "legitimate" news outlets are meatgrindered through and the more spontaneous, ground-level thing you'll find only (1) in real life, or (2) on the internet. True?
Old 24th August 2012
  #94
Talking

.



.
Old 24th August 2012
  #95
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sqye View Post
.



.
Is that actual image photoshopped (no, I don't mean the text ), or was there an actual photograph where Bill Clinton looks like that and Barack Obama looks like that?
Old 24th August 2012
  #96
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
Mainstream broadcast has it's faults, but at least WYSIWYG.
The problem (well, actually one of many) is one of selection bias and/or "lying by omission."

I remember seeing on TV--after some horrendous terrorist act by a Muslim--various pieces of footage of other Muslims celebrating in the street.

While technically yes, this happened and this footage is real and prima face, it wasn't actually honest.

I have met so many people (including my father) that think that all Muslims are either terrorists or terrorist-sympathizers. My father specifically cited the aforementioned footage as evidence.

I'm sure that everytime a homosexual person gets beaten to death, there is some weird faction of idiots in America that celebrates. Imagine if overseas news outlets made a habit of showing footage like that.

What I explained to my father is that there are about 2 billion Muslims on the planet, and that there are--just by sheer statistical probability--bound to be a few terrorist-sympathizers here and there. But if that's all you see on the news then, if you don't know any better, that'll be your impression of Muslims in general.

Anyway, I'll end the rant here and hope I've at least hinted at what I mean to say.
Old 24th August 2012
  #97
Quote:
Originally Posted by aroundtheworld View Post
If you read the Atlantic article and took from it that conclusion, I'd suggest that it might be worth your while to re-read it. The article certainly does not discredit the motivation of those who support Pussy Riot; it rather reasons with those who are outraged at Pussy Riot's circumstances to consider also the broader issue of the Russian government's general-case treatment of political activism and activists. It seems to me a fair point to make, and a reasonable context to add: the media-friendly band Pussy Riot has captured the West's attention, but the author hopes that this attention can expand to include other unjustly imprisoned and threatened Russian political activists.
Sticking the "Kony" label on the Pussy Riot protests was an uncalled for and gratuitous slur. The "Kony" thing was a sleazy scam masquerading as a non-profit charity (when in fact most of the money went in the organizers' pockets). There is no evidence that anybody is milking the Pussy Riot cause for personal gain - in fact the protests have been remarkably decentralized.
The Atlanta article is a very adroit and subtle job of planting the seeds of doubt about the Pussy Riot cause - very skillful and low key propagandizing.

And I'm pretty sure that most people who support Pussy Riot are well aware of the scope of Russian oppression of dissidents. Sometimes a central iocon is needed to focus world opinion. Do you think that Atlantic would have voiced the same resevations discussing Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn?
Old 24th August 2012
  #98
Quote:
Originally Posted by LimpyLoo View Post
The thought that grown men would think that corporate-owned television news is more open and free than the internet is frankly maddening.
Who said that? I think you're imagining things.


Television news in this country is generally pretty poor, often useless unless you're into sports. I seldom watch it.

It used to be a lot better, but I doubt you're old enough to remember - it was some time ago.
Old 24th August 2012
  #99
Quote:
Originally Posted by LimpyLoo View Post
Okay, demonstrate that sites that I think are independent are corporate-run.

Here: The Other 99, Ustream.TV: -Twitter- @Timcast @TheOther99 This channel is being maintained by The Other 99. We continue to be a primary source from the ...

It's some random kid who walks around NYC every day with a camera.


End of story.



He streams it on multiple sites. Ustream has some advertising (like Gearslutz), but it does not affect the content at all.
So you get ALL your news from some random kid wandering around NYC with a camera?

Really?
Old 24th August 2012
  #100
Quote:
Originally Posted by LimpyLoo View Post
Thanks for the link!
Old 24th August 2012
  #101
Quote:
Originally Posted by LimpyLoo View Post
Is that actual image photoshopped (no, I don't mean the text ), or was there an actual photograph where Bill Clinton looks like that and Barack Obama looks like that?
It's pretty obvious that the whole thing is rather amateurishly Photoshopped together.

Heck, even I could do a better job - and I'm not a Photoshop whiz by any means.

Pretty insulting and political pic, too.
Old 24th August 2012
  #102
AyA
Lives for gear
 
AyA's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
It's pretty obvious that the whole thing is rather amateurishly Photoshopped together.

Heck, even I could do a better job - and I'm not a Photoshop whiz by any means.

Pretty insulting and political pic, too.
It's also obvious how hilarious it is...

You're insulting and political.
Old 24th August 2012
  #103
Gear Addict
 

Somebody wrote the pussy riot wasn't used for personal gain.
Let me say that on day to day basis everybody uses everything for personal gain. (its the way we shaped this world)

Example: Here we had a couple of festivals were people could sign for the pussy petition.
Isn't it strange collecting signatures from drunk people who probably didn't get the full story or payed any attention?
12 september we got elections here.
Its only a matter of time before parties (left or right) use this pussy story for more votes.

One thing we can be sure of is that we live in a very sick society no matter where you live.
Old 24th August 2012
  #104
AyA
Lives for gear
 
AyA's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by champ View Post
One thing we can be sure of is that we live in a very sick society no matter where you live.
The sick demons inside me I'm feeding right now because the actual food stuffs in the shops I can't afford... Well these demons are just very highly polished mirrors I'm holding up to the world...


Go out and interview the workers of a corporation... You don't even need to edit the sickness in... Just cut the silence out.


If Michael Moore wasn't Jabba the Hut reincarnate this world would be a better place... He is a fat **** who couldn't sell a story if Walt Disney raped him on film, personally.
Old 24th August 2012
  #105
Thumbs down

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
It's pretty obvious that the whole thing is rather amateurishly Photoshopped together.

Heck, even I could do a better job - and I'm not a Photoshop whiz by any means.

Pretty insulting and political pic, too.
.

OK, you REALLY need to grow some humor, fer cryin' out loud. Yikes.

I'm sure if any of the folks in that web image saw that - they'd have a nice laugh.

Humor - yes, sometimes even sophomoric humor - can be an indication of intelligence.

You should try it. Take a load off (no pun intended heh).

.
Old 24th August 2012
  #106
Old 24th August 2012
  #107
Lives for gear
 
AwwDeOhh's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by LimpyLoo View Post
Dude, I know.

If you go back and read my posts, you'll see that I plainly concede that untoward **** abounds on the internet.

But the difference between the internet and television is that the internet offers the chance for actual free and open news, where you can have random civilians broadcasting live footage from all over the world (which happens abundantly).

If you (as in the general "you") wanna see what the war in Afghanistan is really like, then you need to turn off your TV and consult the internet. Everything is available. It's a much more comprehensive way to get news.


I really thought the benefits of the internet (vis-a-vis "mainstream media") would be self-evident, but whatever...
err..
i don't think anyone can 'see' what any war is "really" like, unless they enlist in one of the armed services, or happen to be unfortunate enough to live in the crossfire.
The internet doesn't shoot at you.
Old 24th August 2012
  #108
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by AwwDeOhh View Post
err..
i don't think anyone can 'see' what any war is "really" like, unless they enlist in one of the armed services, or happen to be unfortunate enough to live in the crossfire.
The internet doesn't shoot at you.
I'm talking about suicide rates and civilian casualties.

I'm not talking about some 1st person shooter cyberspace thing.
Old 24th August 2012
  #109
Lives for gear
 
AwwDeOhh's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by LimpyLoo View Post
I'm talking about suicide rates and civilian casualties.

I'm not talking about some 1st person shooter cyberspace thing.
Sure
&
I get what you're saying. There's only so much time and resources for any one network. This means there are choices of what 'makes the cut' for airtime.
There are pros and cons to each outlet.
Old 24th August 2012
  #110
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by AwwDeOhh View Post
Sure
&
I get what you're saying. There's only so much time and resources for any one network. This means there are choices of what 'makes the cut' for airtime.
There are pros and cons to each outlet.
Exactly.

That's (one of the reasons) why I'm saying the internet is better.
Old 24th August 2012
  #111
Gear Addict
 

Here is your censorship in America. Share 30 songs on the internet and be ****ed for life!
A guy named Joel Tenenbaum gets a brutal $675.000,- for sharing a couple of songs on Kazaa. (they wanted 85% more!!! )

http://beckermanlegal.com/Lawyer_Cop...23Decision.pdf

How can you make a couple of songs be more worth then a persons life?

I grew up thinking music was created for the people not for business.
RIAA made it clear once again that music is pure business to them.

Did the artists on those songs say anything? Did Madonna wear any t-shirt with this guy name on it?
Old 24th August 2012
  #112
Here for the gear
 
Zaka's Avatar
 

the internet is a benediction for us, you have no idea all the crap they were teaching us when we were kids,specially about islam and how its "the best".our local TV look like an old URSS propaganda.
Old 25th August 2012
  #113
Quote:
Originally Posted by champ View Post
.... Did Madonna wear any t-shirt with this guy name on it?
Of course not, she thought it was me!!!
Old 25th August 2012
  #114
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaka View Post
the internet is a benediction for us, you have no idea all the crap they were teaching us when we were kids,specially about islam and how its "the best".our local TV look like an old URSS propaganda.
The USA still has provisions to lock up "insurgents", but they are almost never used these days except for extreme circumstances. Certainly not against some kids doing a protest song in a church. The Wiki-leaks guy? Oh yeah, they want him bad.

Quote:
There have been a number of attempts in the United States to forbid speech that has been deemed "seditious". In 1798, President John Adams signed into law the Alien and Sedition Acts, the fourth of which, the Sedition Act or "An Act for the Punishment of Certain Crimes against the United States" set out punishments of up to two years' imprisonment for "opposing or resisting any law of the United States" or writing or publishing "false, scandalous, and malicious writing" about the President or Congress (but specifically not the Vice-President). The act was allowed to expire in 1801 after the election of Thomas Jefferson, Vice President at the time of the Act's passage.
The Sedition Act of 1918, an extension of the Espionage Act of 1917 which had passed in connection with the United States joining the Allied Powers in the First World War, was a controversial law that led to imprisonment of many prominent individuals for opposing the war or the draft. State laws prohibiting "sedition" were also passed and used to prosecute and persecute alleged "seditionists" during this period, including many people guilty only of being members of the Wobblies. In Schenck v. United States, the Supreme Court upheld the Espionage Act and banned speaking against the draft during World War I. This case led to the "clear and present danger" test. In 1969, Brandenburg v. Ohio established the "imminent lawless action" test. State sedition acts, if in place, are likely unconstitutional under the Brandenburg doctrine of "imminent lawless action" or the older doctrine of "clear and present danger."
@ Skye: That pic was classic.
1
Share
Old 25th August 2012
  #115
Old 25th August 2012
  #116
Quote:
Originally Posted by LimpyLoo View Post
Exactly.

That's (one of the reasons) why I'm saying the internet is better.
Better? I dunno. That reminds me a bit of something my friend Joey said about that word back in our music store days. The context is Joey was manager of the keyboard dept. and a major music store and the Norlin rep had just come in touting the new Moog branded box that the company was flogging as the "replacement" for the Mini Moog, and which used Curtis chips instead of discrete oscillators and filters (Curtis chips were the same components used by Sequential Circuits and several other companies at the time, all of which sounded more or less similar and nothing like a classic Moog) " 'Better' in the mouth of a factory rep" Joey says to me, " really means 'different'!"

I'll grant you that the internet is different as a news source. I wouldn't necessarily say it's better.

The thing about the traditional news services is that you can usually tell pretty easily what their biases are, and in the case of some of the international services are legally constrained from saying things that are demonstrably untrue. (And in the case of Faux News you can be pretty certain that they're lying in some very predictable ways.)

With the internet you can never quite be certain who it is that's talking to you and who might be behind him - or even what personal agenda he might be pushing. Unless you know him personally how do you know for sure that the indie kid walking around NY with a camera is really who he says he is? You don't. The internet is full of people pretending to be something they're not. Not all, certainly, but how can you tell?

But you know, this is really way beside the point.

The point is that the people who were screaming their heads off (and lying through their teeth) about how SOPA et all were going to bring about oppression and censorship haven't had much at all to say when a really egregious case of TRUE oppression and censorship rears its ugly head.

Why/ Because their big "crusade" was all a sham motivated by protecting their business interests and didn't have a damn thing to do with oppression and censorship, that's why.
Old 25th August 2012
  #117
Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghosted View Post
...[snip]...

@ Skye: That pic was classic.
.

Word. heh


And word, rack gear.......We're ALL social activists, now! Doesn't it feel GOOD!

.
Old 25th August 2012
  #118
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rack gear View Post
Happens all the time...

Old 25th August 2012
  #119
Quote:
Originally Posted by champ View Post
Here is your censorship in America. Share 30 songs on the internet and be ****ed for life!
A guy named Joel Tenenbaum gets a brutal $675.000,- for sharing a couple of songs on Kazaa. (they wanted 85% more!!! )
That has noting to do with censorship and everything to do with theft.

What Tenenbaum did was a crime (distributing other peoples work without compensation is a federal felony, although it's seldom prosecuted).

He wasn't prosecuted as a criminal however. That's a big break right there.

He was also charged with distributing only 30 songs, even though he admitted in court to distributing over 800. Another huge break.

He was offered the opportunity to settle for a very nominal sum ( yetanother big break). He refused.

He was convicted BY A JURY OF HIS PEERS, who determined the amount of his fine. Let's look at that again - A JURY OF HIS PEERS. That's 12 normal men and women. Obviously they though that he'd done something pretty wrong.

Nothing in his case had anything whatsoever to do with censorship. Nobody denied him his right to speak - in fact he was given an entire court trial to make his case.

It's not "censorship" when a criminal is found guilty. It's not censorship when a person is, for example, found liable for creating or maintaining a hazard the results in injury to another person.

It's not censorship when you're told you can't have your milk and cookies without paying for them.

You don't hear anybody complaining about the "civil rights" of shoplifters and car thieves. Why should it be any different just because someone uses a computer?
Old 25th August 2012
  #120
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by champ
Here is your censorship in America. Share 30 songs on the internet and be ****ed for life!
A guy named Joel Tenenbaum gets a brutal $675.000,- for sharing a couple of songs on Kazaa. (they wanted 85% more!!! )
Agreed John. That case, no matter how fukked up, has nothing to do with censorship or free speech.
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump