Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Digging For Truth Online Is Up To You

Posted by timothy on from the and-here's-a-shovel dept.

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."

8 of 124 comments (clear)

  1. Government control of speech on the internet by T40+Dude · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Government control of speech on the internet by DaveHowe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That isn't entirely a bad thing - There is draft European legislation to mandate that - if requested, any web page or blog entry be amended to include a link to the requester's counter-comment.
      I suggest the text "And if you want to know what PR-spun bullshit this firm uses to justify this, click >here" be used :)

      --
      -=DaveHowe=-
    2. Re:Government control of speech on the internet by pubjames · · Score: 5, Informative

      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

  2. Not True? by KingArthur10 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    WHA!? You mean everything I read on the net isn't true? *gasp* My world is crumbling before me. Now the trick is, how can you always tell if it is true or not? 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. Now, if we can so easily be tricked into believing water is evil, how the heck are we suppose to be aware of what is true or not? Make a professional looking page and sound smart, and the masses will follow! Just a thought

    --
    I came, I saw, She conquered.
  3. Just on the web? by DaveHowe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Given the extent to which various forces act on the big commercial media companies, Surely it makes more sense to doubt almost all media coverage in isolation? compare Fox/CNN with Indymedia with the BBC with various web blogs from people who are *there* and then come to your own conclusions.... each of those sources will be biassed (either by the opinions of their owners or their governments) but by comparing enough sources you might find a germ of truth somewhere....

    --
    -=DaveHowe=-
  4. Free Media by Heartz · · Score: 5, Insightful
    With media like CNN throwing blind support behind the government policies in the USA, free media even have any more meaning? It seems like the American media is under tremendous pressure to appear patriotic rather than objective.

    ---
    SuaraMalaysia.com - Driving free speech initiatives in Malaysia

    1. Re:Free Media by LauraScudder · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

  5. Slashdot has needed by Idimmu+Xul · · Score: 5, Insightful

    +1 True / -1 False for a long time, as none of the other moderations really fit, when someone is doing their best to be insightful or informative but is just getting it all wrong. As if you have already modded the thread, you cant reply to point out their inaccuracies :/

    --
    The problem with slashdot is that most of its users were bullied and stuffed into lockers as kids!