A place where ModDB members can debate civilly, and learn from each other's views.
No one anywhere should be restrained over trivial nonsense of any sort of any origin when it comes to anything.
what about child errr "abuse" or videos of murder?
or someone posted a video of another person committing a completely legal but embarrassing private act?
These are the decisions of those who control the mediums in which this content may be posted. It is not all too different than a mall, merely translated to media and information. If a store does not follow guidelines it is closed, the same applies to user accounts.
And the reality is, these are not decisions a good majority would ever come by in anything beyond the sort of paranoid 'what if' scenario.
Personally, I've no interest in either nor any right to control them in my position. My judgements are my own, not something which should dictate anyone's morality unless objectively positive.
They should be free to say what they want, but should they be allowed to just outright lie? I know we wouldn't want that, but if we give the government control of it, where's the freedom then? The question is, how can we keep the media free yet also restricted from bias or indoctrination?
I completely disagree, the media is a useful tool for the government and the people deserve to know what is going on.
But it is undeniable that the media wishes to obtain secrets not fit for the mind of the public and will often twist the truth up to serve a cause they deem worthy.
The border between freedom of speech and the presentation of information are very grey to the media in such cases, it has to lesser people getting a certain negative view of certain parts of the world and certain groups of individuals.
I wouldn't consider things like Child abuse trivial nonsense.
But I agree that the internet should be free.
While I see your point, I haven't heard of any government in the world with heavy restrictions on the media that haven't abused it beyond "secrets not fit for the mind"
I could imagine a great deal of benefits from this kind of media "ideal". But it simply doesn't work in reality. I would rather have a free, but faulty media, than a media for the government to use as a weapon against it's own people.
HH, the government already is actively using the media as a weapon against the people.
Fact of the matter is, media cannot really be changed. It will always have biased information.
The difference is that the other way around the media can also be used as a weapon against the government. Your solution makes sure it is always biased towards the government.
A free media ensures the government is kept in check by the people, while still being able to promote their own interests, granted sometimes under an unfair amount of scrutiny (but often deserved), but it's better than one's government starting to use the media to convince you all your countries problems are because of the jews while not allowing any public opposition.
HH, maybe in your country such is the fact but I live in the Netherlands and I have a satellite TV that allows me to view the news from several different channels.
Take for example the incident in Kosovo several months back, the Dutch said nothing, the Germans said they were provoked and the Serbians claim to be innocent.
Before I forget to mention, the news teams had requested a response from their governments. Which would be the above.
But I see your point and I hope you see mine, media can always be influenced whether they know it or not.
Agreed with Ori, media are supposed to bring facts, not propaganda or violation of famous people privacy.
I agree with this.
And personally I simply get my news from Google News now because newspapers are just about celebrities (or more accurately; contain a lot about them and it gets on my nerves). One thing I think that should change with newspapers is that there should be a section simply dedicated to the celebrities way at the back for people who are interested in them while all the first pages should contain the news that is actually important (politics, state, events, events in other parts of the world).
the problem with media bring facts is that there will always be some sort of human interaction, by human nature we are all bias in one degree or another.
not to mention media would get boring and people would find some other sort of entertainment.
Free, within legal bounds. Blatant lies shouldn't be allowed, racism, sexism, and discrimination in a serious context in general should be abolished, people's privacy should never be violated. Otherwise, I think it should be completely free.
The sad problem is that if the media told the entire truth about anything, they'd probably get a lot less money, XD. The general public likes to hear shocking statements, even if they aren't necessarily true.
You would trust a government to determine what is truth in this day and age when whistleblowers are being hunted as spies? Maybe in a century if governments cease to be so tyrannical and primarily self-serving but not now.
It also gets a bit silly at a point; a man was arrested for distributing pamphlets that argued against the holocaust having happened in England just this year or the last. That only supports the case of the loonies who would have otherwise gotten no attention in the first place.
You are not logged in, your comment will be anonymous unless you join the community today (totally free - or sign in with your social account on the right) which we encourage all contributors to do.
2000 characters limit; HTML formatting and smileys are not supported - text only
how much freedom should the media have?