Slashdot Mirror
Survey Reveals Americans Support Blog Censorship
renai42 writes "A new survey has revealed that Americans overwhelmingly support strong censorship for blogs, even though a substantial amount have never actually been to one. Eighty percent of the 2,500 respondents did not believe that bloggers should be allowed to publish home addresses and other personal information about private citizens. However, more than one-third of respondents had never heard of blogs before participating in the survey, and only around 30 percent of participants had actually visited a blog themselves."
In this post 9/11 world we need to be very cautious about what words we speak and hold others accountable for theirs. Anonymous blogging is not only irresponsible and dangerous it's downright anti-christian (Read Luke 8:14-29, John 4:20-13:37)
Home addresses?
Aah, has anybody on
"Personal information"? WHAT personal information?
Your phone number? Phonebook.
Your address? Cross-reference phonebook.
Your kid's names? Your local school paper. The kid next door. His teacher.
Just because it's on a blog and therefore on the Internet doesn't mean you are automatically going to be kidnapped and murdered - or even spammed.
This survey is bullshit for two reasons:
1) It's obviously an attempt to link blogs with "things that are bad" - like child kidnappers or terrorists - in other words, anybody who isn't under TOTAL CONTROL.
2) Second, ANYBODY should be allowed to post ANYTHING about ANYONE ANYWHERE. Period. That includes your IQ, your bra size, your waist size, whether you use Grecian Formula (and WHERE you use Grecian Formula), whether you wear ladies' underwear (whether you are female or male), who you sleep with, who you used to sleep with, and anything else that somebody can find out about you. If you don't like it, take security measures so that people don't find out what you don't want them to find out.
Telling people NOT to find out things about you - especially if you're some kind of asshole that people want to know about - and then telling them NOT to publish it is simply fucking stupid and fascist to boot.
You morons REALLY DO want the Federal government to tell you how to take a shit in the morning, don't you? You REALLY have no personal responsibility and no conception of same, right?
No, I KNOW what your problem is - you're monkeys who, as William Burroughs once said, just HAVE to be RIGHT. Because if you're not "right", you're scared (to death - the death of everybody else but you, apparently) you'll end up dead, so everybody else has to be "wrong" and only you can be "right".
Which means any fucking little picayune trivial issue that comes up that you can use to establish your fucking superiority in the eyes of "the gods" over somebody (and everybody) else, you'll seize on it like it's free pizza and beer. Never mind the economic or social or historical or any other consequences - damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead to you're being RIGHT!
Read my lips, monkeys.
Fuck you.
You got worse problems than bloggers coming down the track when we Transhumans get it together.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
you can do mental gymnastics all day long on the difference between real news and some "blogger" pasting garbage into movable type, but in the end you still know that they contain less accurate, less complete information, presented in a less impartial way.
sure, journalists keep web logs. this does not make web loggers journalists.
sure, individuals produce amateur newspapers. they're called 'zines' and no one takes them seriously, except perhaps as an artistic medium.
if you create a web log and call it "glass news" or something, then it's still a web log, and I still don't care to read it.
if you learn principles of journalism, hire a staff of writers, fact-checkers, and editors, and then help them to organize a process to verify sources and cross-check what's published -- well, then you have a newspaper that's worthy of public exposure.
and that sounds a lot like the so-called "old media", doesn't it? they do things that way for a reason. one person cannot provide a balanced perspective on the news, and no one person's web log should be taken seriously as a source for news.