Slashdot Mirror
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."
Interestingly, the German geovernment tries to implement legislation that would require/force anybody who writes about a company or a person on the internet to publish a corrcection/opposing view from that company/person. If one would not agree to do that, one could be charged and fined or jailed. The government wants to implement the same rules that govern the professional print media to each and every internet post of a private citizen, including all the sanctions associated with a possible "breach". This could potentially result in web spiders looking for e.g. the name SCO, and force each and every slashdot poster to publish a correction. It would bring the internet and any discussoin to a crawl.
In my opinion one of the best things about the internet is its ability to (help people) shine light in dark corners.
Especially with more people making the Internet read/write instead of read-only, with blogs and Wikis for example.
As DRM systems come into play, I wonder if they will also be applied to text, not just music and video. If so, that will lock up more content, and be a serious barrier to information flow. Imagine if 90% of slashdot outbound links became pay-per-view. Maybe the silver lining of such a scenario would be that blogs and other bottom-up content would have even more importance.
The article itself is rather empty and intended for the "citizen"(you got what I mean;o))), however if you bother to read the "by country" reports (pick from the menu on the right), and you choose the right countries(once again, you know what I mean), there's an awful bunch of interesting facts.....
It's definitely a better read, and there're things I didn't even suspect....
1. No sig. 2. ???? 3. Profit!!!
Replying to an earlier post, the science teacher should not be too surprised that her class missed the point about hydrogen hydroxide. Only yesterday we had a link to an article in which a former head of a House Committee on Science appeared not to know the difference between helium and hydrogen, twice. Poor understanding of science is a general disease of society, not something the Internet has brought about.
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
He didn't write the FOREWORD then?
That was classic intercourse!
The scary thing is that this isn't even something that just started after 9.11, when suddenly the whole press acted like not backing the President was a sin. Back in early 2001 I would read the cnn articles about a Bush speech just as they went up online (I guess before a senior editor got their hands on them or something) and they'd include rather shockingly blunt quotes by Bush on religion. (Always made me think that Bush's keepers must have been pretty angry that he couldn't stick to his speeches. I couldn't imagine a speech writer throwing around talk about God and crusades so liberally.) Check again 2 hours later, the quotes had been edited to remove the most inflamatory parts or replaced by a 'summary' of the speech without any excerpts. Ever since then my remaining trust of cnn's impartiality was gone.
Sometimes I can't stand this group.
The article's about taking some personal responsibility to fact-check the crap you read - turn your brain on instead of take what you hear for granted - whether here, on Fox or CNN, from the govt. of your choice or even the online rantings of your Uncle Morty... perhaps especially your Uncle Morty.
I wish I could convince this group that sarcasm isn't truth. It's not even entirely healthy - it's as dangerous as naiveté and certainly more destructive.
The big problem here always is signal-to-noise, and the weenies who stopped doing "FP!" now contribute with their idea of wit. But often "witless" comes closer to the truth, in every sense of the word. Will it spark some kind of discussion? 'Prolly not - I'll just get flamed out the wazoo for saying it. Whoops, there goes my lousy 2 karma points.
It's easier to jabber on, brain in check, no matter what you believe. Blind faith in the worst makes you no smarter, no wiser and no productive than blindly believing in the positive.
Got a gripe? Listen, think, act - how hard is it? DO something about it. Heathly scepticism is a good thing, as long as it's combined with an inquisitive mind.
Talk is cheap - even more so nowadays.