Obama Wants Controls on the Internet

[LowDown]

Without a free internet would we even have heard of Wikileaks? Would we have heard of climategate?

Obama and Angela Merkel Blame Internet and Social Media for Disrupting Globalism

President Barack Obama and German Chancellor Angela Merkel are blaming the internet for disrupting the forces of globalism, suggesting that technology is making it more difficult to unite people behind a common purpose.

“Because of the internet and communications, the clash of cultures is much more direct,” Obama said during a press conference on his trip to Berlin. “People feel, I think, less certain about their identity. Less certain about economic security.”

Obama predicted that the rise of technology needed to be managed to give world citizens more control, beyond the simplistic answers found online.

His German counterpart agreed.

“Digitization is a disruptive force, a disruptive technological force that brings about deep-seated change, transformation of a society,” Merkel added.

She compared the internet to the invention of the printing press, citing the consequences it had on industrialized countries.

“It took a while until societies learned how to find the right kind of policies to contain this and to manage and steer this,” she said.

Yes, democracy and free speech are such a bitches. This pretty much confirms the authoritarian nature of the "globalism" these leaders are talking about.

Obama wasn't nearly as concerned about the internet back when it helped him get elected.

And I suppose all that media coverage that Trump got had nothing to do with his being elected.

Certainly there is a lot of nonsense that gets communicated on the internet, but the mainstream media spreads a lot of nonsense as well. And, of course, when Obama proposes to subject online media to a truth test, the question becomes "Whose truth?" Over at google.com they have climate fanatics censoring skeptical views. The climate fanatics view of what is true has never been verified for the most part, and much of it is nonsense.

(I can quote sections of the IPCC report that would not pass muster with these climate fanatics.)

In any case, I vote "no" on censorship. Social media that censors conservative views, like twitter, deserves to fail.

 

[Henrin]

Our propaganda isn't working as well because of that damn freedom of information thing!

 

[Slyfox696]

I suppose the fact your thread title is not at all supported by the article, or even reality, isn't of much concern to you, is it?

 

[Moot]

Trump is against "net neutrality"...and "freedom of the press".

It's time to stop worrying about Obama and start worrying about what Trump is going to do.

 

[Redress]

Without a free internet would we even have heard of Wikileaks? Would we have heard of climategate?



Yes, democracy and free speech are such a bitches. This pretty much confirms the authoritarian nature of the "globalism" these leaders are talking about.

Obama wasn't nearly as concerned about the internet back when it helped him get elected.

And I suppose all that media coverage that Trump got had nothing to do with his being elected.

Certainly there is a lot of nonsense that gets communicated on the internet, but the mainstream media spreads a lot of nonsense as well. And, of course, when Obama proposes to subject online media to a truth test, the question becomes "Whose truth?" Over at google.com they have climate fanatics censoring skeptical views. The climate fanatics view of what is true has never been verified for the most part, and much of it is nonsense.

(I can quote sections of the IPCC report that would not pass muster with these climate fanatics.)

In any case, I vote "no" on censorship. Social media that censors conservative views, like twitter, deserves to fail.

I will take quotes out of context for 1000 Alex.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/11/17/remarks-president-obama-and-chancellor-merkel-germany-joint-press

But what is certainly true is that the American people -- just like the German people, just like the British, and people around the world -- are seeing extraordinarily rapid change. The world is shrinking. Economies have become much more integrated, and demographics are shifting. Because of the Internet and communications, the clash of cultures is much more direct. People feel, I think, less certain about their identity, less certain about economic security. They’re looking for some means of control.

And what that means is, is that the politics in all of our countries is going to require us to manage technology and global integration and all these demographic shifts in a way that makes people feel more control, that gives them more confidence in their future, but does not resort to simplistic answers or divisions of race or tribe, or the crude nationalism, which I think can be contrasted to the pride of patriotism that we all feel about our respective countries.

..snip for character limit...

And I think that can be done. But it’s hard. It requires creativity. It requires effective communications. Part of what’s changed in politics is social media and how people are receiving information. It’s easier to make negative attacks and simplistic slogans than it is to communicate complex policies. But we’ll figure it out.

So, ultimately, I remain optimistic about not just America’s future, but the direction that the world is going in. And part of what makes me most optimistic is if you look at the attitudes of young people. Across the board, young people are much more comfortable with respecting differences. They are much more comfortable with diversity. They are much less likely to express attitudes that divide us between “us” and “them.” They see themselves as part of a global economy that they can navigate successfully, and are showing enormous creativity and entrepreneurship and working with each other across borders.

So that's where the future is. But we have to create that bridge to the future. And that means making sure we're paying attention to the wages of workers in countries and making sure that we're investing in their education and their skills, that we are growing the economy in smart ways and rebuilding our infrastructure and investing in science and development, and that we stay true to those values that helped get us here. And if we do that, I think we're going to be fine.

No talk about controlling the internet, no talk of censoring.

Funny how I knew even before I checked that what was said was going to be nothing like how it was presented. But then again, I do not need a Breitbart to tell me how to think...

 

[Tanngrisnir]

I suppose the fact your thread title is not at all supported by the article, or even reality, isn't of much concern to you, is it?

You expected something different?

 

[11Bravo]

Without a free internet would we even have heard of Wikileaks? Would we have heard of climategate?



Yes, democracy and free speech are such a bitches. This pretty much confirms the authoritarian nature of the "globalism" these leaders are talking about.

Obama wasn't nearly as concerned about the internet back when it helped him get elected.

And I suppose all that media coverage that Trump got had nothing to do with his being elected.

Certainly there is a lot of nonsense that gets communicated on the internet, but the mainstream media spreads a lot of nonsense as well. And, of course, when Obama proposes to subject online media to a truth test, the question becomes "Whose truth?" Over at google.com they have climate fanatics censoring skeptical views. The climate fanatics view of what is true has never been verified for the most part, and much of it is nonsense.

(I can quote sections of the IPCC report that would not pass muster with these climate fanatics.)

In any case, I vote "no" on censorship. Social media that censors conservative views, like twitter, deserves to fail.

obama wants to restrict the web because he doesnt want us finding his Kenyan birth certificate imo

 

[Redress]

I suppose the fact your thread title is not at all supported by the article, or even reality, isn't of much concern to you, is it?

Why would you want honest discussion?

 

[Slyfox696]

You expected something different?

No, increasingly I do not expect it. That's disconcerting to me. It's not my place to tell anyone how to run their website, but why websites allow the propagation of lies is something I do not understand.

Why would you want honest discussion?

It really is sad how so many people willingly accept a lie when it's what they want to believe.

The only thing I wonder is how many people who push lies are getting paid by another to do so.

 

[OrphanSlug]

In few months he is out of there anyway, then we have Trump's authoritarianism to deal with.

 

[joG]

Without a free internet would we even have heard of Wikileaks? Would we have heard of climategate?



Yes, democracy and free speech are such a bitches. This pretty much confirms the authoritarian nature of the "globalism" these leaders are talking about.

Obama wasn't nearly as concerned about the internet back when it helped him get elected.

And I suppose all that media coverage that Trump got had nothing to do with his being elected.

Certainly there is a lot of nonsense that gets communicated on the internet, but the mainstream media spreads a lot of nonsense as well. And, of course, when Obama proposes to subject online media to a truth test, the question becomes "Whose truth?" Over at google.com they have climate fanatics censoring skeptical views. The climate fanatics view of what is true has never been verified for the most part, and much of it is nonsense.

(I can quote sections of the IPCC report that would not pass muster with these climate fanatics.)

In any case, I vote "no" on censorship. Social media that censors conservative views, like twitter, deserves to fail.

Socialists, Fascists and other Statists will always Information to be controlled by the state and better yet by government.

 

[SenorXm/Sirius]

I suppose the fact your thread title is not at all supported by the article, or even reality, isn't of much concern to you, is it?

Seriously that has become the norm for this site. It's become a daily occurrence. Over and over.

Sad but true.

 

[backpacker]

Without a free internet would we even have heard of Wikileaks? Would we have heard of climategate?



Yes, democracy and free speech are such a bitches. This pretty much confirms the authoritarian nature of the "globalism" these leaders are talking about.

Obama wasn't nearly as concerned about the internet back when it helped him get elected.

And I suppose all that media coverage that Trump got had nothing to do with his being elected.

Certainly there is a lot of nonsense that gets communicated on the internet, but the mainstream media spreads a lot of nonsense as well. And, of course, when Obama proposes to subject online media to a truth test, the question becomes "Whose truth?" Over at google.com they have climate fanatics censoring skeptical views. The climate fanatics view of what is true has never been verified for the most part, and much of it is nonsense.

(I can quote sections of the IPCC report that would not pass muster with these climate fanatics.)

In any case, I vote "no" on censorship. Social media that censors conservative views, like twitter, deserves to fail.

How many years ago was it when he was celebrating social media for bringing about the Arab Spring?

 

[Redress]

Socialists, Fascists and other Statists will always Information to be controlled by the state and better yet by government.

Obama in no way, shape nor form suggested information or the internet be controlled by the government.

 

[LowDown]

I will take quotes out of context for 1000 Alex.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/11/17/remarks-president-obama-and-chancellor-merkel-germany-joint-press



No talk about controlling the internet, no talk of censoring.

Funny how I knew even before I checked that what was said was going to be nothing like how it was presented. But then again, I do not need a Breitbart to tell me how to think...

So I'm supposed to believe that something from whitehouse.gov is completely accurate?

 

[LowDown]

Obama in no way, shape nor form suggested information or the internet be controlled by the government.

False.

Pittsburgh (AFP) - President Barack Obama on Thursday decried America's "wild, wild west" media environment for allowing conspiracy theorists a broad platform and destroying a common basis for debate.

Recalling past days when three television channels delivered fact-based news that most people trusted, Obama said democracy require citizens to be able to sift through lies and distortions.

"We are going to have to rebuild within this wild-wild-west-of-information flow some sort of curating function that people agree to," Obama said at an innovation conference in Pittsburgh.

"There has to be, I think, some sort of way in which we can sort through information that passes some basic truthiness tests and those that we have to discard, because they just don't have any basis in anything that's actually happening in the world," Obama added.

Again I would ask, "Whose truth?"

 

[Deuce]

None of the statements from Obama in the article actually support the thread title.

Am I the only one who noticed?

 

[Redress]

False.



Again I would ask, "Whose truth?"

Funny how I go with what he said, you look for people to tell you about what he said, can't find it, so look for an entirely different event to misrepresent. Why do you have to have others think for you?

 

[mike2810]

So I'm supposed to believe that something from whitehouse.gov is completely accurate?

Do you believe all the information on the internet is completely accurate? Check and verify is a good practice get into.

To answer your question, no I do not believe everything on whitehouse.gov is completely accurate. As I don't believe everything from any news source, website, blog are completely accurate.

 

[Redress]

So I'm supposed to believe that something from whitehouse.gov is completely accurate?

It is a transcript. You use brietbart as a source for this thread, but doubt a transcript...

 

[AtlantaAdonis]

We need an AI like in Medal Gear Solid 2 that filters out lies and false stories from social media and the internet. Otherwise the internet will pretty much put the progress of civilization to a halt.

"But in the current, digitized world, trivial information is accumulating every second, preserved in all it's triteness. Never fading. Always accessible."

 

[LowDown]

Funny how I go with what he said, you look for people to tell you about what he said, can't find it, so look for an entirely different event to misrepresent. Why do you have to have others think for you?

That page was linked and commented on in the article linked in the OP. It was key to the point I made. I can't account for the lack of intelligence of people who read what I post.

 

[LowDown]

It is a transcript. You use brietbart as a source for this thread, but doubt a transcript...

Yes, I do. It's from the White House.

 

[katzgar]

Without a free internet would we even have heard of Wikileaks? Would we have heard of climategate?



Yes, democracy and free speech are such a bitches. This pretty much confirms the authoritarian nature of the "globalism" these leaders are talking about.

Obama wasn't nearly as concerned about the internet back when it helped him get elected.

And I suppose all that media coverage that Trump got had nothing to do with his being elected.

Certainly there is a lot of nonsense that gets communicated on the internet, but the mainstream media spreads a lot of nonsense as well. And, of course, when Obama proposes to subject online media to a truth test, the question becomes "Whose truth?" Over at google.com they have climate fanatics censoring skeptical views. The climate fanatics view of what is true has never been verified for the most part, and much of it is nonsense.

(I can quote sections of the IPCC report that would not pass muster with these climate fanatics.)

In any case, I vote "no" on censorship. Social media that censors conservative views, like twitter, deserves to fail.

this is one of the most absurd threads ever posted on these forums. Obama is gone soon, you really need a civics lesson.

 

[LowDown]

We need an AI like in Medal Gear Solid 2 that filters out lies and false stories from social media and the internet. Otherwise the internet will pretty much put the progress of civilization to a halt.

"But in the current, digitized world, trivial information is accumulating every second, preserved in all it's triteness. Never fading. Always accessible."

And who is going to decide what is a lie and what is a false story? Who is going to program the AI? The New York Times says that the Trump transition is in disarray, and the Trump transition team says things are going smoothly. Who is lying? Which gets "filtered out"? Do you go with the New York Times because it's liberal and you're liberal?