Do we need an internet gatekeeper?

[boomerang]

CNN news anchor asks if something needs to be done 'legally' about 'anonymous bloggers'.

Should there be a “gatekeeper” regulating internet bloggers? In the aftermath of the Shirley Sherrod incident, that’s what CNN promoted on July 23.

Anchors Kyra Phillips and John Roberts discussed the “mixed blessing of the internet,” and agreed that there should be a crackdown on anonymous bloggers who disparage others on the internet.

Some discussion ensues. Read the article and watch the video if you desire.

“If you’re in a place like Iran or North Korea or something like that, anonymous blogging is the only way you could ever get your point of view out without being searched down and thrown in jail or worse,” said Roberts. “But when it comes to a society like ours, an open society, do there have to be some checks and balances, not national, but maybe website to website on who comments on things?”

Too much freedom here? Is this reasonable? Should it apply to just the internet? Should print media and visual media have a gatekeeper too? If you think so, who should those gatekeepers be?

Would you support the shutdown of our Forums here under the premise that someone could say something wrong? That's the heart of their discussion.

Is this just news anchors caught up in themselves spouting nonsense or the pulse of the nation beginning to be expressed? Perhaps the pulse of the government?

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

What we need is more journalistic integrity from the mainstream media.

 

[Kappo]

CNN news anchor asks if something needs to be done 'legally' about 'anonymous bloggers'.



Some discussion ensues. Read the article and watch the video if you desire.



Too much freedom here? Is this reasonable? Should it apply to just the internet? Should print media and visual media have a gatekeeper too? If you think so, who should those gatekeepers be?

Would you support the shutdown of our Forums here under the premise that someone could say something wrong? That's the heart of their discussion.

Is this just news anchors caught up in themselves spouting nonsense or the pulse of the nation beginning to be expressed? Perhaps the pulse of the government?

CNN doesn't like that other people are reporting news in a different way. They see people that don't want to eat the crap they feed. They would LOVE to force people to eat their crap. News at 11.

 

[NoStateofMind]

I think its pretty fricken simple. Don't take some bloggers word for it and do your own research. Sean Hannity I've heard over and over point out how racist her remarks are but he intentionally ignores the rest of the message to push his own agenda. Douche bags like him are the ones who really should get the ax. But no its not the responsibility of the reporter to give accurate information anymore, only their opinion.

 

[Modelworks]

The way it works right now you can make an account on a forum, get banned, come back under another name, use a proxy for a different ip , etc . People can pretty much behave how they want. I worked suicide hotlines where people were driven to suicide by what was happening to them online and the offenders get away with it because they are anonymous. If it were in public they most likely would not have done what they did.


Newspapers for years have required names when printing comments and I can understand why something is needed online. When people comment on a news story and others read it , that comment influences them . If someone wanted to distort the truth all they have to do is post a string of anon comments. In the real world that is slander or liable. Online it is hard to prove who did it.


What is needed is some way to verify a person is that person when on the internet without disclosing personal information.

A solution that would not invade privacy and at the same time allow for accountability is something like a signed public key. It could be managed by companies like verisign so that it stays out of the government control. Someone would provide their information to verisign and receive a key unique to them and a public key. The key could then be used to verify the person is who they say they are.

So to sign up on a forum you could use any username or email, but you would provide your public key linking that account back to you. The public key contains no personal information and the only information the forum gets is a good or bad response when they check the key with verisign. It all can be done with scripts pretty easily and would work better than email verification many forums use now.

If a forum wanted to ban someone they just block that public key and that person could not return without doing a lot of work to get a new key, the old one revoked, etc. If someone were to do something illegal online then authorities could contact verisign for the personal information. Currently they use IP address for this but IP were never intended as a way to identify the person on the other end. Anyone with a proxy can bypass that ability.

 

[waggy]

if they started something like this it would be bad.

we don't need to stop people from anonymous news reporting. what we need is truth in reporting. ALL of the media outlets falsify the reports. the spin is the only difference.

 

[Modelworks]

if they started something like this it would be bad.

we don't need to stop people from anonymous news reporting. what we need is truth in reporting. ALL of the media outlets falsify the reports. the spin is the only difference.

Anonymity has its place, unfortunately bloggers and others are abusing it. If you want to harm a competitor in the real world you have to work pretty hard to disseminate false information. Online in less than a few hours you can do large amounts of harm . All someone has to do is make accounts on different sites and start spreading rumors anonymously . Even if other people read it and don't believe it, if they see it often enough on different sites it starts to add doubt if it is possibly true. The target of the rumors gets harmed while the person spreading them walks away anonymously.

 

[bamacre]

We need a federal Department of Truth.

 

[NoStateofMind]

We need a federal Department of Truth.

Sir, the President is on line one.

 

[hal2kilo]

I could care less about internet blogs since there coverage is minimal. It's when an organization like Fox News is basically a propaganda organ for the RNC & now Tea Party that's the real problem. How many times when a Republican does something bad that they are labeled with a D by there name that you need to be convinced that it is nothing other than a mis-information organization. It' no accident.

 

[boomerang]

I could care less about internet blogs since there coverage is minimal. It's when an organization like Fox News is basically a propaganda organ for the RNC & now Tea Party that's the real problem. How many times when a Republican does something bad that they are labeled with a D by there name that you need to be convinced that it is nothing other than a mis-information organization. It' no accident.

So, you'd like to see FNC off the airwaves then? In your opinion, the information you receive from other cable channels is fairly balanced?

You see, what I'm thinking is that you have a problem with FNC not being in lockstep with the rest of the cable news networks. That you like your news sanitized and approved by let's say 'The Federal Department of Truth'?

Am I wrong?

 

[boomerang]

Anonymity has its place, unfortunately bloggers and others are abusing it. If you want to harm a competitor in the real world you have to work pretty hard to disseminate false information. Online in less than a few hours you can do large amounts of harm . All someone has to do is make accounts on different sites and start spreading rumors anonymously . Even if other people read it and don't believe it, if they see it often enough on different sites it starts to add doubt if it is possibly true. The target of the rumors gets harmed while the person spreading them walks away anonymously.

The attitude you defend, is one very prevelant with the left. I've seen it here many times. Information can be both useful and dangerous. Always has been and always will be. This notion of people's minds being changed by repeatedly hearing misinformation is of course warranted.

So the 'authorities' should take steps to make sure that doesn't happen? Who are these kind and benevolent authorities that would be so nice as to look out for our best interests? Certainly they'd have no agenda of their own, correct?

I'm not sure you know what it is your advocating. Is there a possibility of abuse?

 

[boomerang]

We need a federal Department of Truth.

Those few words say a lot. I wonder how many here truly understand the implications of them? Very succinct. Me like.

 

[waggy]

I could care less about internet blogs since there coverage is minimal. It's when an organization like Fox News is basically a propaganda organ for the RNC & now Tea Party that's the real problem. How many times when a Republican does something bad that they are labeled with a D by there name that you need to be convinced that it is nothing other than a mis-information organization. It' no accident.

whats funny is you label fox but ignore the fact that the other networks do the same slimy shit.

 

[Modelworks]

This notion of people's minds being changed by repeatedly hearing misinformation is of course warranted.

So the 'authorities' should take steps to make sure that doesn't happen? Who are these kind and benevolent authorities that would be so nice as to look out for our best interests? Certainly they'd have no agenda of their own, correct?

I'm not sure you know what it is your advocating. Is there a possibility of abuse?

I wouldn't be for control of what was said only for accountability for those that say it. If they want to blog about someone or talk about a company they should be required to provide some means that identifies them in some way as the person that says it. Either a code held by a private company or something that ties them to what they are doing online besides an ip address.

Imagine newspapers printed with no written by information or tv news programs without any source information that is what the current online system allows.

 

[waggy]

Anonymity has its place, unfortunately bloggers and others are abusing it. If you want to harm a competitor in the real world you have to work pretty hard to disseminate false information. Online in less than a few hours you can do large amounts of harm . All someone has to do is make accounts on different sites and start spreading rumors anonymously . Even if other people read it and don't believe it, if they see it often enough on different sites it starts to add doubt if it is possibly true. The target of the rumors gets harmed while the person spreading them walks away anonymously.

I agree. i have issues with people Lieing and making shit up. If you there needs to be consequences.

but the problem is what? EVERY mainstream media outlet does it. just a matter of how its slanted.


a "department of truth" wont' work. who is going to be in charge of it? is Obama going to appoint a czar? a government elected office? lol yeah those would be honest.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Do we need an internet gatekeeper?

I don't think we need a gatekeeper but a bullet-proof BS filter would be nice.

Regretfully, traffic at ATP&N would drop to 'nil'.




--

 

[Rainsford]

Anonymity has its place, unfortunately bloggers and others are abusing it. If you want to harm a competitor in the real world you have to work pretty hard to disseminate false information. Online in less than a few hours you can do large amounts of harm . All someone has to do is make accounts on different sites and start spreading rumors anonymously . Even if other people read it and don't believe it, if they see it often enough on different sites it starts to add doubt if it is possibly true. The target of the rumors gets harmed while the person spreading them walks away anonymously.

The problem is basically what PC Surgeon suggested. It's not the anonymity or freedom to say whatever they want that allows bloggers to disseminate false information, it's that people treat blogs and other opinion outlets as a substitute for actual journalism.

For some reason we as a society have decided that qualifications and standards are no longer important, that everyone's voice should be equally important not only on matters of opinion, but on matters of fact. Fox News or CNN might not be your favorite news outlets, but at least they are accountable for what they claim to be true...some random idiot posting on a blog is not.

And that's fine, we don't need a "gatekeeper" to watch over random idiots on the Internet...we just need to stop treating those random idiots like they are actual journalists. The problem with this latest situation wasn't that the video was edited to distort what was said, it was that action was taken without verifying the facts first.

 

[shiner]

I am the key master

 

[hal2kilo]

I wouldn't be for control of what was said only for accountability for those that say it. If they want to blog about someone or talk about a company they should be required to provide some means that identifies them in some way as the person that says it. Either a code held by a private company or something that ties them to what they are doing online besides an ip address.

Imagine newspapers printed with no written by information or tv news programs without any source information that is what the current online system allows.

As long a Fox claims to be fair and balanced, instead of what they truely are which is an extreme right wing propaga organ. Not moderate right of center but extreme.

MSNBC went snarky to the left because they saw a need and a market niche in reaction to Faux Noise. I'm well aware of their views.

You think ABC is left of center? Yes, CBS, NBC, and CNN are left of center but extreme?

If anything the MSN is just lazy or has been defunded and turned into profit centers, so why bore people with real objective information anymore. Stupid human interest stories and blah, blah, blah.

Fox gets rating cause they have big haired, big boobed blondes, and have the most sensational crime stories even if there from the smallest hamlet in the USA.

 

[waggy]

The problem is basically what PC Surgeon suggested. It's not the anonymity or freedom to say whatever they want that allows bloggers to disseminate false information, it's that people treat blogs and other opinion outlets as a substitute for actual journalism.

For some reason we as a society have decided that qualifications and standards are no longer important, that everyone's voice should be equally important not only on matters of opinion, but on matters of fact. Fox News or CNN might not be your favorite news outlets, but at least they are accountable for what they claim to be true...some random idiot posting on a blog is not.

And that's fine, we don't need a "gatekeeper" to watch over random idiots on the Internet...we just need to stop treating those random idiots like they are actual journalists. The problem with this latest situation wasn't that the video was edited to distort what was said, it was that action was taken without verifying the facts first.

I agree.

bloggers have there place. they have come out with some stuff that the main stream media won't cover or don't have the time to cover.

in the age of 24/7 media covarage if you aren't first you didn't report it. so when they get something they jump on it. this time it had some bad consequences. it won't be the last time either.

it does not help that most of the media are controlled by so damn few.

 

[waggy]

Fox gets rating cause they have big haired, big boobed blondes, and have the most sensational crime stories even if there from the smallest hamlet in the USA.

true. they need more big boobed redheads. fuck i would watch any channel if they did. if they were naked? i would watch a palin speech.

 

[hal2kilo]

true. they need more big boobed redheads. fuck i would watch any channel if they did. if they were naked? i would watch a palin speech.

Unfortunately, you proved my point!

 

[waggy]

Unfortunately, you proved my point!

what you against big boobs eh? thats sexist! im calling NABB (national assocation of big boobs) they are going to picket your work! suck the cleavage! SUCK IT!


ahem..sorry. been up all night with a basement flooding..the coffee is getting to me..

 

[Kappo]

I wouldn't be for control of what was said only for accountability for those that say it. If they want to blog about someone or talk about a company they should be required to provide some means that identifies them in some way as the person that says it. Either a code held by a private company or something that ties them to what they are doing online besides an ip address.

Imagine newspapers printed with no written by information or tv news programs without any source information that is what the current online system allows.

So you want to take the failing and outdated business model of a NEWSPAPER and apply it to all of the internet? Do you really want every single thing published as a PR statement? The beauty (and beast) of the internet is that you can have a forum of open discussion without having to worry about if you are being PC enough or if your employer is going to disagree with a view you have enough to fire you.

In the end, people LIKE being able to come to the one place where there is still some semblance of freedom and express their views/ideas/rants/etc. The accountability is held in the communities online just like they are in different towns and communities everywhere.

The entire reason that the internet is so popular is because it is what you make it. Tearing that down and rebuilding it in the vision of the people who want more control over others is the epitome of destroying freedoms.

Do people abuse it? Sure. Do people abuse rice pudding? I'm sure.