• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Big Biz Troubled by Net's Moral Fiber

B

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
When I read this article, ATOT imagery filled my mind.

News Corp President from CNET
The president of media giant News Corp. warns that the Internet has become a "moral-free zone," with the medium's future threatened by pornography, spam and rampant piracy. Speaking Tuesday at an annual conference organized by the Progress & Freedom Foundation, Peter Chernin decried the "enormous amount" of worthless content online.

"The prevalence of pornographic Web sites and e-mails is a lot more than an insult to common decency," Chernin said. "It's an increasing reason to keep kids and families off the Internet. And these are only part of the virtual logjam of valueless clutter."

He can't be from News Corp . . . they print and broadcast plenty of smut (along with the National Geographic Channel). Fox is the epitome of logjam of valueless clutter.

Bruce Mehlman, an assistant secretary at the Commerce Department, wondered whether it was fair to blame technology for social and political problems. He said that the Internet was still young and that many problems could be worked out over time.

Business always has friends at Commerce. Porn must be more lucrative.

 
Let me make this perfectly clear.

It doesn't matter what the RIAA or the DMCA says. It doesn't matter what the CEO of CNET says. They have no power to make laws or regulate a damn thing.

The number one threat to our freedom on the net is our government. They are the only ones with the power to regulate, tax, make laws, or enforce laws.

Everybody else can bitch and whine until they're blue in the face. They are powerless without government support.

So, in any fight to save the last truely free place on earth (the net) we MUST focus ALL efforts directly on our government. We must, enmass, flood our government leaders with threats of voting them out of office if they support ANY taxes, laws or regulations on the net.

Please, folks, don't let the nanny-state get it's hands on the last free zone on earth. Ignore the private whiners and bitchers... focus on your representitives in government. Let them know that they will be ruined if they try to turn the net into a nanny-state farce like they've done with the rest of the country (or world, for that matter).

I guess my point is, anybody who doesn't vote for "congressional action" in this poll is NOT seeing the big picture.
 
i fear the day that some congressional morons pass some insane law that'll thwart the internet's growth.
 
OK, the moral majority must be sleeping or can't decide between fee-porn, free-porn, and Clinton. Next time I will give some K-type options.
 
I think Amused One is well named. He amuses me immensely. I even agree with him most of the time. He's almost as big a Libertarian as I am.

My experience is that I almost never see pornography on the internet or in my email. I got a hunch that people find what they're looking for or are careless about where they post their email address. Maybe too, because pornography neither excites me or offends me, I just don't notice it that much.


Edit: I don't do poles, but I'm glad you put Clinton in there. He's definitely responsible for all moral decay in America. Right after he got his bj, larry flint was able to determine that tons on Republicans immediately started divorcing wives eith cancer, having out of wedlock kids etc etc etc. It was terrible. 😀
 
Originally posted by: AmusedOne
Let me make this perfectly clear.

It doesn't matter what the RIAA or the DMCA says. It doesn't matter what the CEO of CNET says. They have no power to make laws or regulate a damn thing.

The number one threat to our freedom on the net is our government. They are the only ones with the power to regulate, tax, make laws, or enforce laws.

Everybody else can bitch and whine until they're blue in the face. They are powerless without government support.

So, in any fight to save the last truely free place on earth (the net) we MUST focus ALL efforts directly on our government. We must, enmass, flood our government leaders with threats of voting them out of office if they support ANY taxes, laws or regulations on the net.

Please, folks, don't let the nanny-state get it's hands on the last free zone on earth. Ignore the private whiners and bitchers... focus on your representitives in government. Let them know that they will be ruined if they try to turn the net into a nanny-state farce like they've done with the rest of the country (or world, for that matter).

I guess my point is, anybody who doesn't vote for "congressional action" in this poll is NOT seeing the big picture.
Click to expand...

Our government has been bought and paid for many times over with corporate campaign contributions.
 
I think he meant ethnic sexual preferences. It's just that I can't spell. As it happens I don't do polls, I've done nothing but poles for quite some time. A polka is so much more than a dance. 😀
 
These guys are crying cause TV viewership is droping like the stock market. The laughtrack homo bs on tv just ain't worth watching. If you can rent or pay per view that's what you do. Otherwise the net or watch your fish's face fall off in the fish tank.
 
Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Originally posted by: AmusedOne
Let me make this perfectly clear.

It doesn't matter what the RIAA or the DMCA says. It doesn't matter what the CEO of CNET says. They have no power to make laws or regulate a damn thing.

The number one threat to our freedom on the net is our government. They are the only ones with the power to regulate, tax, make laws, or enforce laws.

Everybody else can bitch and whine until they're blue in the face. They are powerless without government support.

So, in any fight to save the last truely free place on earth (the net) we MUST focus ALL efforts directly on our government. We must, enmass, flood our government leaders with threats of voting them out of office if they support ANY taxes, laws or regulations on the net.

Please, folks, don't let the nanny-state get it's hands on the last free zone on earth. Ignore the private whiners and bitchers... focus on your representitives in government. Let them know that they will be ruined if they try to turn the net into a nanny-state farce like they've done with the rest of the country (or world, for that matter).

I guess my point is, anybody who doesn't vote for "congressional action" in this poll is NOT seeing the big picture.
Click to expand...

Our government has been bought and paid for many times over with corporate campaign contributions.
Click to expand...

That is neither here nor there. It is YOU that votes people in, or out. By allowing your attention to be drawn towards whining private companies, instead of towards those with the power to take your freedom, you allow yourself to be fooled.

People think this will stop by allowing government to have MORE control over business, or by somehow limiting their ability to lobby. WRONG. This only gives the true takers of freedom, government, more power still. When you have a government that has no power to pass laws restricting people's fredom and the growth of the internet, it doesn't matter how much the businesses may lobby. The government wont be able to do what it has no power to do.

Folks, STOP empowering your government, and it wont be able to pass laws that take your freedom away. Therefore no business in the world will be able to lobby for such. Our government isn't for sale because business is bad. Our government is for sale because our government is bad. And yet those who complain about it being for sale, want to give it even MORE power to pass MORE laws to prevent it from being for sale? Folks, it's for sale BECAUSE it has that power.

 
The correct answer is congressional action. The DMCA came courtesy of them and the RIAA/MPAA will never be more than an annoyance absent legislation from congress allowing them even more latitude and control over what defines "fair use".
 
Any argument can have a bunch of one-sided facts applied to make something look bad. There are tools out there to stomp SPAM and report the spammers (Spamkiller).

Regarding "free" music - the recording industry did it to itself. People grew frustrated with having to pay $14.00 for a CD that only had a "few" good songs on it. Napster and other "music sharing" programs developed out of the frustration of many people who wanted to get the songs they only wanted, not the "fluff" on the CDs - and not pay some big profits to executives of record companies. It's not all about being "free", but rather only finding and collecting what we really wanted all along.

Regarding Pr0n: Well, the sleaze will follow the consumers. However, it's pretty cheap to put a site up quickly and reach out to millions of potential customers. Consumers have a moral choice whether they want to look for and collect pr0n.

Personally, I'd rather see the time that they are spending arguing about the Internet be applied to truly find out what is undoing America's (and other countries') Moral Fiber. I suspect a lot of this undoing had started long before the Internet became so popular. Free MP3s and a little T&A didn't put us in the position we're in now.
 
These guys are crying cause TV viewership is droping like the stock market. The laughtrack homo bs on tv just ain't worth watching. If you can rent or pay per view that's what you do. Otherwise the net or watch your fish's face fall off in the fish tank.
Click to expand...
Exactly. In an effort to try and grab more market share, TV companies have cut a lot of severe corners. They thought that "reality" TV is what people wanted after seeing the popularity of the first Survivor. Now, the stations are full of reality shows. And regarding that "Anna Nicole Smith Show" - how can you call that quality programming? People are frustrated with what's on TV so they're not watching as much of it.

Have any studies been done to see if people are reading more books instead? Or, have people negelected this outlet also?
 
Where's the Bush/Republicans choice? Should I just vote for Asscroft?
rolleye.gif



AO you are very naive if you think the individual voter will ever have more power than corporate America. I don't care who's in office.
 
Originally posted by: wje
Any argument can have a bunch of one-sided facts applied to make something look bad. There are tools out there to stomp SPAM and report the spammers (Spamkiller).

Regarding "free" music - the recording industry did it to itself. People grew frustrated with having to pay $14.00 for a CD that only had a "few" good songs on it. Napster and other "music sharing" programs developed out of the frustration of many people who wanted to get the songs they only wanted, not the "fluff" on the CDs - and not pay some big profits to executives of record companies. It's not all about being "free", but rather only finding and collecting what we really wanted all along.

Regarding Pr0n: Well, the sleaze will follow the consumers. However, it's pretty cheap to put a site up quickly and reach out to millions of potential customers. Consumers have a moral choice whether they want to look for and collect pr0n.

Personally, I'd rather see the time that they are spending arguing about the Internet be applied to truly find out what is undoing America's (and other countries') Moral Fiber. I suspect a lot of this undoing had started long before the Internet became so popular. Free MP3s and a little T&A didn't put us in the position we're in now.
Click to expand...

The porn industry has been booming ever since VCRs moved it from movie theatres and into the home. The net is only the latest and greatest delivery mechanism. Spam is nothing more or less than the digital equivilent of telemarketing or junk mail and once again the net is just a convenient and cheap delivery mechanism.

Now for my pet topic file sharing and MP3s. I still firmly believe that what MP3s have done is to step in and fill the void left by the collapse of vinyl specifically the 45 RPM record. As any of the older posters on here can confirm these used to be very inexpensive and the main purchasers were teens. For 50 cents you could get a record that had the "hit song" on one side and another song from the album on the flip side. We would buy tons of these things and listen and trade them back and forth. The record companies loved it since it is what drove album sales. Until they come to grips with the new realities they will be spending all their time and money on lawyers trying in vain to stop all the different ways people can devise to share music digitally.
 
Originally posted by: DaveSohmer
Where's the Bush/Republicans choice? Should I just vote for Asscroft?
rolleye.gif



AO you are very naive if you think the individual voter will ever have more power than corporate America. I don't care who's in office.
Click to expand...

You miss the point. "Corporate America" can have NO power if the government does not have the power to pass the laws the businesses want them to.

The more power you give your government, the more power corporate America will have. When you give your government more power to regulate business, you only open it up to MORE, not less corruption.

Corruption is ALREADY illegal. Therefore any real quid pro quo going on is already banned. Passing more laws against it, or punishing business wont make it go away. What you've got to do is remove the impetus to do so. That impetus is government's ability to pass laws that remove individual freedoms.

Finally, the individual voter can, and is more feared by politicians than corporations in one case: When they form a lobby. Ask any politician who has more power over their vote, the AARP, or Microsoft? The NAACP, or Dow Chemical?

Sure, the corporation may be able to contribute large sums of money, but so can the private lobby. And the private lobby means millions of votes where the corporation means none.
 
I'm glad I read your edit before I posted.

I agree that lobbies are the way to go however some corporations can offer as big a voting block as a lot of lobbies. This is obviously more critical as you move towards the local level where a particular industry may be the only voting block in the district. I think you under estimate the power that corporations have over voters, individuals and blocks.

I wonder how many people would make this their number one voting criteria. Why should I?
 
Originally posted by: DaveSohmer
I'm glad I read your edit before I posted.

I agree that lobbies are the way to go however some corporations can offer as big a voting block as a lot of lobbies. This is obviously more critical as you move towards the local level where a particular industry may be the only voting block in the district. I think you under estimate the power that corporations have over voters, individuals and blocks.

I wonder how many people would make this their number one voting criteria. Why should I?
Click to expand...

The problem with organized lobbies like NAACP, MADD etc is they end up outliving their original purpose and take increasingly far out positions just to keep the funds rolling in. MADD is a great example of the. No one disputes that drunk driving was and is a very serious issue. When MADD originally was founded the goal was to make the states enforce exisiting laws and pass stricter laws to reduce the number of drunk drivers. They were successful beyond their wildest expectations in this. Now to keep the funds rolling in they have changed the definition of impairment to .08, classify any accident involving anyone (passenger, passer by, drunk stumbling in front of a car) as an alcohol related accident all to keep the statistics from showing that we have been quite successful at reducing the number of alcohol impaired drivers. They have gone so far off message that one of the original founders is now critical of their actions today.
 
Originally posted by: AmusedOne
I guess my point is, anybody who doesn't vote for "congressional action" in this poll is NOT seeing the big picture.
Click to expand...

RIAA, MPAA and others could use the Congress as a tool to kill the net. That is what they are doing as we speak. RIAA and others think that the entire tech-sector, Internet included, must dance to their tune, and they see the lawmakers are the perfect tool to accomplish that goal. Just slip the lawmakers some money, and they will do anything you ask them to do.
 
Originally posted by: Nemesis77
Originally posted by: AmusedOne
I guess my point is, anybody who doesn't vote for "congressional action" in this poll is NOT seeing the big picture.
Click to expand...

RIAA, MPAA and others could use the Congress as a tool to kill the net. That is what they are doing as we speak. RIAA and others think that the entire tech-sector, Internet included, must dance to their tune, and they see the lawmakers are the perfect tool to accomplish that goal. Just slip the lawmakers some money, and they will do anything you ask them to do.
Click to expand...

Agian if the tool was not usable, they would not be able to use it. Without the government's ability to make laws favorable to them, these companies are powerless. Moreover, they have the freedom to lobby for any law they want, just as any other American citizen and that should not change. What needs to happen is to do the very thing this country was founded upon: Limit the power of the federal government.

Ultimately it is the GOVERNMENT you need to control, not every other individual. The sole purpose of government should be to protect the individual civil liberties and rights of it's citizens. It should not be able to regulate one group of individuals to placate another.
 
Originally posted by: DaveSohmer
I'm glad I read your edit before I posted.

I agree that lobbies are the way to go however some corporations can offer as big a voting block as a lot of lobbies. This is obviously more critical as you move towards the local level where a particular industry may be the only voting block in the district. I think you under estimate the power that corporations have over voters, individuals and blocks.

I wonder how many people would make this their number one voting criteria. Why should I?
Click to expand...

The laws in question here are not local, they are federal. And it all depends on how well you can present your case to the people. The unfortunate thing is that people will not be swayed unless it's their sacred bull being gored. You just have to find a few signifigant groups, and make them understand that the loss of freedom on the net will gore their bull.

BTW, I think you're confusing unions with corporations. I can't think of any corporation that can sway large blocks of voters, but unions can.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top