The Atlantic Argues World Leaders Should Not Have Unfiltered Voice

pcgeekesq said:
Easy answer: because unlike most "everyone else" on Twitter, what world leaders think actually matters.
Click to expand...
What they think doesn't matter anymore than what everyone else thinks. It is what they *do* that matters.
 
(1) apparently many young people are on Twitter and don't read/watch news so *need* politics in their face.

(2) damn you Kyle -- you are [H]ard, one tweet ahead of me for 2017/2018 and I know that I'll never catch up. ;)
 
Madoc said:
What they think [world leaders] doesn't matter anymore than what everyone else thinks.
Click to expand...
So, your thesis is that, for example,
(A) me thinking that the US can execute and win a lightning war against North Korea​
matters just as much as
(B) the President of the US thinking the US can execute and win a lightning war against North Korea.​

I'm flattered that you think my opinions matter that much, but I think your thesis is incorrect.
(A) is of no significance to anyone but me.
(B) could affect the lives of millions, if not billions, of people.
 
motomonkey said:
News has Always been profit driven entertainment. it just had the false veneer of journalistic integrity beck before the internet allowed people to see things in real time. Research the media blitz leading up to the Spanish American war. the entire war was the result of newspapers making up a fucking story to sell papers.
Click to expand...

I guess we just see things differently.

I won't deny that there have always been agendas, and that in some cases those agendas have subverted the news media. I don't accept, however, that all journalistic integrity is a sham. Things have gotten markedly worse in my lifetime in a way I believe is directly attributable to the blurring of the line between news and entertainment. For heaven's sake, you've got media outlets hiding behind "but we're not news, we're entertainment" to avoid being held accountable. If there were truly no difference, why bother?
 
Ignore the argument made in the article and instead act like it's a conspiracy. Very intelligent.
 
ZenDragon said:
I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand I think it's a step forward to remove mainstream media the communication of world leaders. It's important that people understand the intention of their leaders without the mainstream media corporate interest filters. On the other hand, we have idiots like Trump just blasting all sorts of nonsense out to the world, that is just downright embarrassing to this country as a whole. I would think if used more intelligently, it could be a good thing.
Click to expand...

I mostly agree here, I don't see President Trumps use of Twitter as a positive thing.

Frankly, I think it lacks class.

Perhaps it's because I don't have a Twitter or Facebook account, maybe it's cause I'm just one of those people with a stick up his ass.

But I avoided that shit when people started getting fired over it so sue me (but it won't be for something I said on Twitter or Facebook).
 
Gigus Fire said:
Basically. Freedom of the press has become a echo chamber. Not only is it increasingly opinionated, but if you don't have the right opinion then your views aren't wanted.

There are multiple "news" sites that have removed comments on articles for this exact reason.
Click to expand...
I hate to have to post this over and over, but that's not "freedom of speech." Here is a refresher of the 1st:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Edit: Sorry - meaning the 1st only protects you from the government taking actions for your opinions... which...
 
bugleyman said:
I guess we just see things differently.

I won't deny that there have always been agendas, and that in some cases those agendas have subverted the news media. I don't accept, however, that all journalistic integrity is a sham. Things have gotten markedly worse in my lifetime in a way I believe is directly attributable to the blurring of the line between news and entertainment. For heaven's sake, you've got media outlets hiding behind "but we're not news, we're entertainment" to avoid being held accountable. If there were truly no difference, why bother?
Click to expand...


I can't disagree that there are true believers in the field of journalism, but most of the Bob Woodwards get overshadowed by the shills, infotainment brokers and promoters of all the agendas. It's certainly not helped by things like Twitter feeds being treated as serious journalistic content.

With the Atlantic, it's the ultimate Irony, the old order complaining about the barbarians at the gate hijacking their mandate by bypassing the media establishments vetting process. can't promote the agenda if you don't have a monopoly on the soapbox.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Madoc
like this
haste. said:
I hate to have to post this over and over, but that's not "freedom of speech." Here is a refresher of the 1st:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Edit: Sorry - meaning the 1st only protects you from the government taking actions for your opinions... which...
Click to expand...
??
Freedom of speech is the ability to say anything (assuming it's not for direct violence or puts people in harm) without legal consequences.
Social consequences are always different. No government can compel the people to think a certain way.
 
MavericK said:
Uh...no. Not at all. What about slander?
Click to expand...
It's only slander if your taken to court for it and found guilty.
It's quite a bit of difference of having the government find you guilty of saying something defaming the government and throws you in jail.
You can even slander the government without anything happening to you.
 
Nice hat, Kyle!

If you haven't yet, wear it out to convenience stores or Target or whatever. Sometimes you freak people right out and they'll actually scream. It's pretty funny.
 
Gigus Fire said:
??
Freedom of speech is the ability to say anything (assuming it's not for direct violence or puts people in harm) without legal consequences.....
Click to expand...

No, there can be legal consequence. If your speech is provable false and causes financial or reputation harm the offended has the right to challenge you in court.
 
Gigus Fire said:
It's only slander if your taken to court for it and found guilty.
It's quite a bit of difference of having the government find you guilty of saying something defaming the government and throws you in jail.
You can even slander the government without anything happening to you.
Click to expand...

I didn't see the word "government" anywhere in your post. And your original post that was quoted by haste. was referring to media, not the government.
 
otherweeb said:
No, there can be legal consequence. If your speech is provable false and causes financial or reputation harm the offended has the right to challenge you in court.
Click to expand...
I could point out the "puts people in harm" portion of that statement and say it covers financial and or reputation, but whatever.
 
MavericK said:
I didn't see the word "government" anywhere in your post. And your original post that was quoted by haste. was referring to media, not the government.
Click to expand...
I was giving an example of places without freedom of speech and specifically adding in the word "government" to talk about those places and how you could get in trouble by saying something.
 
pcgeekesq said:
So, your thesis is that, for example,
(A) me thinking that the US can execute and win a lightning war against North Korea​
matters just as much as
(B) the President of the US thinking the US can execute and win a lightning war against North Korea.​

I'm flattered that you think my opinions matter that much, but I think your thesis is incorrect.
(A) is of no significance to anyone but me.
(B) could affect the lives of millions, if not billions, of people.
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter until the President actually orders troops (or starts the process of sending troops) or other similar military actions. Saying what he thinks, OTOH, can inform us and allow us to take measure to prevent him from taking actions (doing something) we don't want him to do. If we don't know what he really thinks, then how can we do anything about it?
 
Madoc said:
Saying what he thinks, OTOH, can inform us and allow us to take measure to prevent him from taking actions (doing something) we don't want him to do. If we don't know what he really thinks, then how can we do anything about it?
Click to expand...
This contradicts your original statement, wherein you stated:
"What they [world leaders] think doesn't matter anymore than what everyone else thinks." -- Madoc, Jan. 11, 9:03AM
​
And note that what he says only matters it if it is actually what he thinks. Hollywood's women-abusing "feminists" demonstrate the difference.
So, special Twitter rules are justified for world leaders because, as you admit, what they tweet matters, while what most people tweet does not.
 
pcgeekesq said:
This contradicts your original statement, wherein you stated:
"What they [world leaders] think doesn't matter anymore than what everyone else thinks." -- Madoc, Jan. 11, 9:03AM
​
And note that what he says only matters it if it is actually what he thinks. Hollywood's women-abusing "feminists" demonstrate the difference.
So, special Twitter rules are justified for world leaders because, as you admit, what they tweet matters, while what most people tweet does not.
Click to expand...
Ah, I see. You're just going to twist around whatever I say to make it seem like I agree with you. I don't. You can consider my part in this discussion over.
 
Smashing Young Man said:
When something is filtered, it must always be filtered through a medium. Those who call for a filter of course intend themselves to be the medium. I ain't having that.
Click to expand...
World leaders do have a medium, it's called their press office. When they decide to negate their obligations to speak through their office and informed appointees to speak on behalf of their nation to the world they fail to use the tools that help maintain peace and can only open wounds and cause harm to the country and its people both at home and abroad.
 
Actually you do...

Why?
Sunlight is the best disinfectant
Click to expand...
If someone's comments and inner thoughts are self-censored or censored by some medium then how are we ever to know?

Right now these world leaders come out, say what we want and we find out what they are really like and thus further vote for them or don't vote for them. if what we ever heard was pre-agreed phrasing then we are essentially voting for their PR manager

This is why the "safespace" movement in the US and the "no platform" movement in the UK scares me so much... you do not fight hate-speech or socially unacceptable speech by suppression, by silencing, by censoring or by criminalising (and YES parts of Europe are considering this... ) YOU deal with it by challenging their idea's, countering their arguments, winning their followers over, DEBATES. just because you do not like to hear something doesn't mean the right solution is to silence it not just because of what I just wrote BUT equally at some point what you state can easily be demonised and powers you previously advocated are now used against you.

I may not like what you say, but I will defend your right to say it.



Out of the books 1984 and fahrenheit 451 I find 451 scarier because it is subjugation by society as oppose to the gov'n & it is happening now... "Fake New" "twitter" "#MeTo" "BLM"
 
I've played with Twitter a bit lately and I'm not impressed with the quality of the software. The spell checker is especially awful. I hate Trump but now I'm understanding some of his spelling errors on Twitter...if I was a "world leader" with spelling problems, Twitter would not be my first choice...or I'd at least have an editor check my stuff before I posted. I suspect I'll get bored pretty soon and go the one a year route of Kyle.
But as far as "world leaders" not being able to post? Na, they should have the same ability as anyone, but they should also be held to the same rules.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Madoc
like this
Twisted Kidney said:
Look at it this way: Fools will believe whatever they read or see from certain sources. Fictional places, fictional events, breakthroughs in alternative "medicine", conspiracy idiocy. There is no power on earth that will stop that from happening, fools and conspiracy nuts were no less prevalent before the internet. They just have a place to act like fools in front of an audience now.

It's going to come down to whether the people tweeting or posting have any respect for their position or not. Even then most people will point and laugh, there will always be those that drink the Kool-Aid. Social media doesn't change that.
Click to expand...
The only discrimination between information sources is budget. The 'conspiracists' don't have the budget to dress up their message to look professional and pay experts that agree with them. You have to ask yourself how do the ones with that budget get that budget? Are they beholden because of that?

They are all bad in their own way. The only solution is to know that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dgz
like this
jpm100 said:
The only discrimination between information sources is budget. The 'conspiracists' don't have the budget to dress up their message to look professional and pay experts that agree with them. You have to ask yourself how do the ones with that budget get that budget? Are they beholden because of that?

They are all bad in their own way. The only solution is to know that.
Click to expand...

The difference between reality and imagination is not a fucking budget. Facts are very, very different things from vague allusions, gleeful delusions, and wild flights of imagination.

There are no my facts and your facts, there are no selective facts. Facts are facts, reality is real. There are millions of people who can no longer distinguish between fantasy and reality because of the exact bullshit you just typed.

This shit is not how "they" fool you, it's how you fool you.

Funny, thing: Political conspiracies cost billions to propagate, the money involved doesn't turn them into facts.
 
whats the problem with presidents saying what they think? didnt people vote for them? dont you trust your own president? or is it because its Trump?
 
Well, keeping in mind that money makes the world go around, It is extremely doubtful that these web companies as a whole with do anything to stop World Leaders from using their services for the very simple fact of the exposure and validation it gives them which translates to money one way or another.

There would be a very real and measurable loss if celebrities were banned I would think.

Honestly, I don't know what the problem is. If you have no interest then why would anyone be paying attention. If you are paying attention then I am happy for you. It doesn't matter to me one way or another.

The problem comes down to haters. I see people everyday go out of their way to bitch and complain in order to disrupt, annoy and cause havoc. of course my bullshit filter is such that I never notice.
 
Twisted Kidney said:
The difference between reality and imagination is not a fucking budget. Facts are very, very different things from vague allusions, gleeful delusions, and wild flights of imagination.

There are no my facts and your facts, there are no selective facts. Facts are facts, reality is real. There are millions of people who can no longer distinguish between fantasy and reality because of the exact bullshit you just typed.

This shit is not how "they" fool you, it's how you fool you.

Funny, thing: Political conspiracies cost billions to propagate, the money involved doesn't turn them into facts.
Click to expand...

Nah, it's just a double edged sword. There's crazy, and there's smart. Make up your own mind.

Who would you rather trust?

This bitch

170803_PLUS_TheyLive.jpg.CROP.promo-xlarge2.jpg


her friends here

large_they_live_blu-ray_9.jpg


or these two

they-live-1920x1080.jpg


???
 
dgz said:
Nah, it's just a double edged sword. There's crazy, and there's smart. Make up your own mind.

Who would you rather trust?

This bitch (pics)???
Click to expand...

Well, she does have a nice coat, but Roddy is Roddy, you know?

I'm, not one to base my life's philosophy off a B-rate flick, but it is Roddy. Canadians are inherently more trustworthy than anyone ever in the history of stuff.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Madoc
like this
Gigus Fire said:
??
Freedom of speech is the ability to say anything (assuming it's not for direct violence or puts people in harm) without legal consequences.
Social consequences are always different. No government can compel the people to think a certain way.
Click to expand...
Lol. Freedom of speech isn't the ability to say "anything". Freedom of speech is a protection put in place so that an autocracy couldn't try to silence the press (weird concept in this day and age). You can say whatever the hell you want but the constitution doesn't protect you from retribution. Don't confuse the two as it is consistently done by the uninformed especially on the internet.
 
haste. said:
Lol. Freedom of speech isn't the ability to say "anything". Freedom of speech is a protection put in place so that an autocracy couldn't try to silence the press (weird concept in this day and age). You can say whatever the hell you want but the constitution doesn't protect you from retribution. Don't confuse the two as it is consistently done by the uninformed especially on the internet.
Click to expand...
One might think that freedom of the press would protect the press, but this is the first time i'm hearing that freedom of speech is only to protect the press again.
It does protect you from retribution from the government.
 
Gigus Fire said:
One might think that freedom of the press would protect the press, but this is the first time i'm hearing that freedom of speech is only to protect the press again.
It does protect you from retribution from the government.
Click to expand...
put in place. still protects you bud.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top