Digging For Truth Online Is Up To You

An anonymous reader writes "Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has released the second annual report on obstacles to the free flow of information online. Vint Cerf wrote the forward, where he argues it is the responsibility of every citizen to test the truth of information on the Web, and draw attention to incorrect information, rather than the government's responsibility to dictate the 'truth.' ZDNet Australia has an article on the report."

Comments

Re:Government control of speech on the internet

[pubjames]

Interestingly, the German geovernment...

The US government isn't any saint when it comes to stifling free speech. The only difference is that the US government does it in an underhand way using whatever tactics it can to bully or coherce to get what it wants, rather than by using laws. Which is better? At least with laws it is out in the open and gets discussed in a transparent manner.

A worrying development: Bush's government are trying to coherce NGOs to promote positive views of the government and the USA, saying that NGOs (that's Non-Governmental Organisations) are just another arm of the government. Read more here:

Now Bush wants to buy the complicity of aid workers

Re:The GPL: Intellectual Property or Intellectual

[DaveHowe]

You seem to have some problems here

1. Kernel Changes
   Provided you know about (and design for) the GPL in advance, kernel modules *can* be closed source. Changes to prewritten modules (patches, in effect) can't be, but then you aren't doing work youself, you are just bugfixing/improving what is already there. Certainly, certain makes of car are improved by adding multifocus mirrors to them, but that doesn't allow you to claim design ownership of any cars you modify, at best you can claim the mirror.
2. Compiler
   downsize your lawyer - immediately. he is obviously unable to read and understand licences - output of a gcc compiler and the standard linux libraries are only GPL if you want them to be. you can successfully write closed source programs in almost any compiler with no licencing hangups (or nobody would use them)
3. Source avaliability
   You are not required to give any source to anyone who doesn't have a binary; therefore, only your customers can possibly request a copy (although you can't stop them passing same to your competitors, you can limit distribution; if you have a small number of customers you can also "customise" the source in order to be able to track down which customers are being a little unfaithful....
4. Rewrite
   you *really* need to change lawyers; either they should have warned you about the limitations of the GPL long before you started coding, or they should have known how to work around it for a commercial product. the written off development time (and/or rewrite time) has a commercial value you can almost certainly reclaim from them (although sueing lawyers is often a exercise in futility)

If nothing else, some *big* names are releasing under custom linuxen - and I am sure Oracle would have a problem or two with giving away their source to any customer who asks!

Re:The GPL: Intellectual Property or Intellectual

[beoch]

So you can imagine our suprise when we were informed by a lawyer that we would be required to publish our source code for others to use. It was brought to our attention that Linux is copyrighted under something called the GPL

The problem here was that you took source code and altered it so that you could re-sell it to your clients, but you didn't read the included license until after you had spent all this time coding with it.

I guess that this is your first time using free software or open source or you would have known that the first thing you have to do when considering using thirdparty code or libraries is look at the license and check what you can and can't do or claim. OSS under GPL can co-exist happily with your own closed proprietary code but you have to keep a clear distinction between what you have written and what is GPL'd.

Re:Not True?

[tsvk]

Heck, my mother, a 7-8th grade advanced science teacher did a test with the class showing them an online article about the evils of hydrogen hydroxide. At the end of the class, over half the class believed that there was a serious problem in the world with hydrogen hydroxide that needs to be dealt with. Only one student in the class knew the truth of what hydrogen hydroxide really is: water.

Did she by any chance use the Dihydrogen Monoxide Research Division (DMRD) site? It's really hilarious, especially the FAQ can be a scary reading for someone that does not get the joke.

Re:Government control of speech on the internet

[dago]

If you read some article about it, you see the minimum proposed requirement is effectively to put a link to the reply.

You won't be paying for the bandwith.

Newsfighter

[__aaklbk2114]

Disclamer: I'm not affiliated with this project in any way, I just saw it and thought it looked cool...

There's an interesting project at Sourceforce called Newsfighter that's working to build an open source reporting and colaboration system for fighting repressive control or censorship of information.

From their web site:

Newsfighter is a set of tools that web designers and independent journalists can use to protect the integrity of their written work against abusive governments, guarantee its dispersal and persistence around the world, and foster relationships of trust with their audiences and each other.

How to Detect Bullshit (A Very Simple Guide)

[SilentMajority]

After you read this simple guide to bullshit detection , you'll be shocked to see how much of the 10 common propaganda techniques we are exposed to daily from managers, media, and even friends who sometimes don't even realize they're using these specific propaganda techniques.

I rediscovered this guide today after many years and had a good laugh when I ran into a few of the propaganda techniques after lunch.

After 15-30 minutes reading this guide, you'll be amused if you practice it on:
1. Fox News Channel (easy place to start for beginners--you can sometimes detect 5 different techniques within a few minutes)
2. Slashdot Posts (if you're into picking apart someone's flawed argument, you'll become a pro)
3. CNN Crossfire (watch 2 pros battle each other using these techniques)

IMHO, they should teach this (bullshit detection) in high school and assign homework to find specific examples of common propaganda techniques in advertising, news media, etc. Can you detect which one(s), if any, I'm using in this post?

Index of 10 common techniques

Word games
....Name-calling
....Glittering generalities
....Euphemisms

False connections
....Transfer
....Testimonial

Special Appeals
....Plain Folks
....Bandwagon
....Fear

Logical fallacies
....Bad Logic or propaganda?
....Unwarranted extrapolation

Source: http://www.propagandacritic.com/