dough560 on May 06, 2011, 04:46:29 pm
I don't remember which thread it was, but somehow the determination was made the UW could censor access to the Tanglenet.  Refer to strip 224 where it is stated; "The Tanglenet can not be "eavesdropped on, traced or jammed".

In other words, no censorship.  What ever the people of Ceres post to the Tanglenet, the UW can not censor.  No matter how much they would wish to,  In fact, the UW would have no idea, how many people accessed the posts.
« Last Edit: May 06, 2011, 10:52:09 pm by dough560 »

SandySandfort on May 06, 2011, 08:17:00 pm
I don't remember which thread it was, but somehow the determination was made the UW could censor access to the Tanglenet.  Refer to strip 224 where it is stated; "The Tanglenet can not be "eavesdropped on, traced or jammed".

In other words, no censorship.  What ever the people of Ceres post to the Tanglenet, the UW can not censor.  No matter how much they would wish to,  In fact, the UW wold have no idea, how many people accessed the posts.

Just to clarify, the UW requires that all comms sold have a "V-chip" that routes all traffic through government listening centers before going to the person you are calling. It is a felony to have a comm that does not do this. It is billed as an "anti-terrorist," "anti-kiddy porn," "anti-organized crime" measure for your protection. It is also in those centers where the government has a tanglenet "kill switch."

Of course, "terrorists" (libertarians and other individualists), pedophiles and illegal service providers, buy snoop-free comms on the black free market. The real reason is to control the general population.

However, just as is the case today, where anybody knows where they can buy drugs within an hour two, everyone in the UW knows someone who can get them a censor-free com or better yet, can pass along information that the government has censored on chipped comms.

spudit on May 06, 2011, 10:30:10 pm
A recorder, "tape" the shooting and pass it on via sneaker net.
Vote Early and Vote Often
for EFT
have you voted today?

SandySandfort on May 07, 2011, 12:24:14 am
A recorder, "tape" the shooting and pass it on via sneaker net.

Exactly, plus alternative networks such as Fidonet. A video like that would probably go viral in no time.

Tucci78 on May 12, 2011, 09:52:56 pm
This discussion of the U.W. apparatchiki attitude toward the Tanglenet got me thinking about Peter Huber's Orwell's Revenge: The 1984 Palimpsest (1994), my copy of which is buried in the basement I know not where.

Huber's supported argument, based upon the dissection of a scanned and digitized version of Orwell's novel (together with everything else by Eric Blair that Huber could lay his hands upon), was that Big Brother's networked system of electronic monitoring and propaganda promulgation - the telescreen - necessarily contained within it the capability to function as a conduit of coordination for those among both the proles and the party who wished to resist and then to overthrow the government under which they suffered.

At one point in the novel, Huber speaks through the voice of one of his characters:

"Freedom is sanity....The telescreen will give us necrophilic reveries, but it will also create room for the art of angels. It will supply passion but also reason. It will spread propaganda but also private discourse. It will give us spies, but also distance us from them. It will carry the proclamations of generals before battle, the speeches of fuhrers and prime ministers, the solidarity songs of public schools and left wing political parties, national anthems, temperance tracts, papal encyclicals and sermons against gambling and contraception - and it will also carry the chorus of raspberries from all the millions of common men to whom these high sentiments make no appeal. The network empowers electronic thugs at one end and the Thought Police at the other. But in the middles stand the great mass of men, simple, honest, and sane. So long as common men use the network too, their basic sanity will prevail. Freedom will be freedom."
"I is a great believer in peaceful settlements," Jik-jik assured him. "Ain't nobody as peaceful as a dead trouble-maker."
-- Keith Laumer, Retief's War (1966)

dough560 on May 13, 2011, 04:47:49 am
Tucci78, your point is evident with the current revolt concerning established TransProg media sources and emerging independent media

Fox News is consistently out performing ABC. CBS, CNN, NBC, MSNBC, etc....  Combined.

Then there's talk radio; Beck, Regan, Rush, etc....  Liberal attempts to compete have been abject failures.

Pick a subject, you can find a blog where people who care about the subject will either educate, bring a laugh,  mortify or just plain piss you off.  Much like here.

I don't believe there is an organized media conspiracy as such.  I do believe we are dealing with a pattern of thought brought about by TransProg domination of our education system.  Thus creating a culture clashes between ethnic groups, generations, and populations.


Tucci78 on May 13, 2011, 05:35:32 am
Tucci78, your point is evident with the current revolt concerning established TransProg media sources and emerging independent media

Fox News is consistently out performing ABC. CBS, CNN, NBC, MSNBC, etc....  Combined.

Then there's talk radio; Beck, Regan, Rush, etc....  Liberal attempts to compete have been abject failures.

Pick a subject, you can find a blog where people who care about the subject will either educate, bring a laugh,  mortify or just plain piss you off.  Much like here.

I don't believe there is an organized media conspiracy as such.  I do believe we are dealing with a pattern of thought brought about by TransProg domination of our education system.  Thus creating a culture clashes between ethnic groups, generations, and populations.

Take special note of the fact that it is in those areas where people in the audience - those whose "eyeballs" and "ears" the old, dying media had been selling to their advertisers - have been able to choose viewing and listening options outside the narrow range of the effective broadcast news dissemination monopolies that we've seen this happen.

It's the market. That's where the "Liberal" fascisti have failed, and are continuing to fail.

Jeez, no wonder they hate capitalism so much.  When the market is free to function, they have nothing to offer that anyone they want to persuade (or deceive) is willing to pay attention to.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2011, 05:37:28 am by Tucci78 »
"I is a great believer in peaceful settlements," Jik-jik assured him. "Ain't nobody as peaceful as a dead trouble-maker."
-- Keith Laumer, Retief's War (1966)

dough560 on May 15, 2011, 02:52:09 am
Not only a market of Ideas but of Facts.  Facts trump fiction any day.

sam on May 15, 2011, 04:11:16 am
I don't believe there is an organized media conspiracy as such.

It depends on what you mean by "organized".  Everyone in the mainstream media knows that if they disrupt the Kayfabrication this will have bad consequences for their career, their friends will stop talking to them, and so on and so forth. The Kayfabrication is in part confabulated by all of them, thus not all that organized or centralized, more like left wing fashion, but some people are a lot more influential in setting the fashion than others, in particular certain people at the New York Times, which is a lot like the Kayfabrication being organized and centralized.   It is not at all good for one's career in journalism to notice facts that the New York Times is failing to notice.

The financial crisis was a good example of this.  I knew a panic was on, most people I knew also knew a panic was on, but for over a year the mainstream media supposedly did not know, the federal reserve theoretically did not know (though we now know that it was at the same time pressuring financial institutions around the world to swallow toxic assets that they were throwing up) academic economists supposedly did not know, the management of major banks somehow supposedly failed to notice.  Statistics showed housing prices were fine though everyone knew they were collapsing.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2011, 04:19:00 am by sam »

mellyrn on May 15, 2011, 06:59:21 pm
Quote
I don't believe there is an organized media conspiracy as such.

I don't, either.

Not all news can be presented -- there is neither time nor space.  News entities therefore make judgment calls on what to present and what to leave out. 

When there are many entities, the judgment calls can be (can hardly help but be) highly varied.  When there are few, there will be less variety.

I don't think it's "an organized media conspiracy" as such, so much as an artifact of precious few media entities -- http://www.freepress.net/resources/ownership , keeping in mind the existence of "corporate culture".


quadibloc on May 15, 2011, 07:11:21 pm
I don't think it's "an organized media conspiracy" as such, so much as an artifact of precious few media entities
Of course, in the case of the specific example given, I wouldn't be surprised that no media outlet wants to be the one that was responsible for starting the panic that led to the Second Great Depression - which is why you have to be a savvy investor to know when to sell.

sam on May 15, 2011, 07:41:09 pm
I don't think it's "an organized media conspiracy" as such, so much as an artifact of precious few media entities -- http://www.freepress.net/resources/ownership , keeping in mind the existence of "corporate culture".

Six big companies, and hundreds of smaller companies, yet somehow not one company is able to notice that news that the New York Times chooses to not notice?


sams on May 16, 2011, 03:49:22 am
I don't think it's "an organized media conspiracy" as such, so much as an artifact of precious few media entities -- http://www.freepress.net/resources/ownership , keeping in mind the existence of "corporate culture".

Six big companies, and hundreds of smaller companies, yet somehow not one company is able to notice that news that the New York Times chooses to not notice?



We have the blogosphere and talk radio for that.

J Thomas on May 16, 2011, 09:19:24 am
I don't think it's "an organized media conspiracy" as such, so much as an artifact of precious few media entities -- http://www.freepress.net/resources/ownership , keeping in mind the existence of "corporate culture".

Six big companies, and hundreds of smaller companies, yet somehow not one company is able to notice that news that the New York Times chooses to not notice?

I like your kayfabe metaphor. It seems to fit pretty well.

We have mostly a free market in news, and the various vendors try to give their customers what they want. Their customers want a lot of eyeballs to look at their ads, so news tends to do whatever will get their audience to keep coming back.

The audience mostly wants to hear the same news everybody else hears. One of the big points for listening to news is so you can be "informed" and know what everybody else is talking about when they talk about news.

"What about that earthquake?"
"Oh, terrible, terrible."
"Terrible, terrible."
"And that latest atrocity in Afghanistan."
"Terrible, terrible, the government ought to do something."
"Yeah, but whatyagonnado?"
"And the continuing genocide in Chad."
"Huh?"
"Huh? Is that for real? Where did you hear it?"

If one media outlet reveals the latest news everybody else jumps on it quick so they won't get left out. But nobody wants to announce something that the others decide isn't news after all....

So pretty often new stuff filters up from local news. They try it out locally, and if the local audience is interested and nothing bad happens, then it might spread.

"Infotainment" sort of expresses it, but I like your "kayfabe" better.

You say nobody mentioned the banking crisis until all of a sudden they all did? I wonder why. The way I'd expect it, for years in a row they'd have quick explanations from economists. A few of them would say that things are going pretty much OK but there are some reasons to think we might get some rough spots. This is the mainstream position because the media says it is. Then they'd put up one economist (or stockbroker etc) who says that we're about to have a giant crisis and the whole system could collapse.  Then they maybe get one more mainstream guy and switch to another topic.

I wasn't watching, but didn't they do that every day or every week for years before the actual collapse? As long as it was expert opinion they reported whatever expert opinions that worked best to keep their audience coming back.

Then when our high-stakes Texas Holdem President announced that there was a giant crisis that nobody could have foreseen, and we had to give him close to a trillion dollars, no questions asked or the sky would fall, that was news. And Candidate Obama said to give Bush the money -- like the biggest golden parachute in history. And Candidate McCain said Wait, we had to think it out and ask some questions, but then he looked at his polls and he folded too. The biggest Texas Holdem bluff in history, and Bush won! That was a lot more news than a bunch of economists disagreeing about the next recession.

In general, traditional news tried to present itself as objective and balanced. "Just the facts, ma'am." "And that's the way it is." The general sense was gloomy, you knew what was happening and there was nothing much you could do about it.

Fox News does it better. They cultivate a sense of outrage. They are on your side. The USA is strong enough we can solve every problem, but we aren't doing it because bad guys in the USA stop us. People come back for that better than they did the other way. Not that they get more news or better news, but it feels a lot better to feel outraged than helpless.

What to do to get real news? In general original sources are better. But the man-in-the-street in Teheran doesn't know much more than the man-in-the-street in New York, and if it isn't an official original source, how do you know it isn't disinformation from somebody trying to fool you? Sometimes even governments disclaim their previous news releases. It's an art to decide what to believe out of conflicting sources, most of which feel they need to lie.

It's really no wonder people prefer to choose a channel and believe in it. Much easier, and not like you actually need to know.

Tucci78 on May 16, 2011, 09:53:04 am
I don't think it's "an organized media conspiracy" as such, so much as an artifact of precious few media entities -- http://www.freepress.net/resources/ownership , keeping in mind the existence of "corporate culture".

Six big companies, and hundreds of smaller companies, yet somehow not one company is able to notice that news that the New York Times chooses to not notice?

We have the blogosphere and talk radio for that.

Certainly, "the blogosphere and talk radio" have changed the game to an increasing extent over the past twenty years. Bubba the Irrumator would never have been exposed for the perjuring bastid he's always been had it not been for blogger Matt Drudge. The "official" media (those "Six big companies" and their sputniki) were doing their best to make that story go down the Memory Hole, just as they've been doing their best to make the still very legitimate question about the birthplace (and therefore the constitutional qualification) of our Poverty Pimp excuse for a lawful POTUS disappear.

I mean "Race: African" on a birth certificate allegedly filled out in Hawaii in 1961? 

Yeah, right.  And I'm "Race: North American."

But "the blogosphere and talk radio" are still looked upon by the old, dying, legacy news media as more an irritant - a damned nasty irritant, but an irritant nonetheless - than any kind of real threat. They've been in control for so damned long that any other stated view of the samizdat "little people" is impossible for them.

Yet another instantiation of the classic fingers-in-the-ears-&-eyes-squeezed-shut "Nurmee-Nurmee-Nurmee-I'm-not-listening!" defense.
"I is a great believer in peaceful settlements," Jik-jik assured him. "Ain't nobody as peaceful as a dead trouble-maker."
-- Keith Laumer, Retief's War (1966)

 

anything