It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Internet ‘Disruptive’ Force that Has to Be ‘Contained, Managed, and Steered’ by Government

page: 1
11

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 06:34 PM
link   


by Oliver JJ Lane17 Nov 2016

Speaking at a joint press conference with outgoing American President Barack Obama on his farewell tour, German Chancellor Angela Merkel made chilling remarks about her views on the need for government to control the internet and slammed anti-Islamisation protesters who she accused of hijacking the German spirit for liberty.
...
Calling the surge of interest in right-wing politics a “wave” that “engulfs us,” Ms. Merkel noted the sentiment “seems to come from the United States,” but in an oblique reference to President-Elect Donald Trump said it was an issue she was dealing with in Europe, too. She said:

“Look at the European parliament. There are a lot of people who are looking for simplistic solutions and are preaching simplistic solutions which are very unfriendly policies. We have them here in Europe, too, we have them in Germany too.”

Apparently blaming this rising populism — politics that are popular with voters — on the internet, the German chancellor implied the internet would have to be subject to restrictive censorship laws as were enacted by many European nations to stem the disruptive effect of the printing press. She said:

Digitisation is a disruptive technological force that brings about deep-seated change and transformation in society. Look at the history of the printing press, when this was invented what kind of consequences it had. Or industrialisation, what consequences that had.

“Very often, it led to enormous transformational processes within individual societies and it took a while until societies learned to find the right kinds of policies to contain this, to manage and steer this. We live in a period of profound transformation.
...

www.breitbart.com...

Merkel is admitting that she thinks information the public receives has to be contained and steered. i wonder what happened to "freedom of the press"... She is even claiming this information she thinks is disruptive is coming mainly from the U.S., so apparently she and her globalist buddies would want to concentrate on containment of information in the U.S.

To prove that she has made these statements here are excerpts taken from the whitehouse.org website.

Now, remember that Breibart is one of the many alternative news sites that the globalists, and the left want to blacklist/ban.


...
And to take up where the President left off, digitization is, in a way, a disruptive force, a disruptive technological force that brings about deep-seated change, transformation of a society. Look at the history of the printing press -- when this was invented, what sort of consequences this had. Or industrialization -- what sort of consequences that had. Very often it led to enormous transformational processes within individual societies, and it took a while until societies learned how to find the right kind of policies to contain this and to manage and steer this. And I think we live in a period of profound transformation, very similar to when we had a translation from agricultural societies to industrial societies.
...

www.whitehouse.gov...

When politicians talk people have to learn to read between the lines, separate the rhetoric that is in their speeches/comments only to try to dissuade people into accepting what can only be seen as efforts by the globalists to contain the "freedom of the alternative press". We know there is no freedom of the press anymore as the wikileaks have shown. The mainstream media sources have been bribed and bought for and they would not cover many concerning issues that people should know about. We have to learn to separate the rhetoric in such speeches and discern what they actually embrace. In this case, Merkel, and President Obama seem to believe that "the internet" has to be contained, steered and managed" only to support policies the globalists want, and to tow the party line of the globalist elites.




posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 06:41 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Government- Do something! They aren't buying it!!!


hahahahahahahahahahahaha

Suck it, government!

(flips off something. . . . the dog is looking at me funny now)
edit on 18-11-2016 by DBCowboy because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 06:44 PM
link   
So digital multiculturalism is bad?



posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 07:04 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Germany is sealing with a massive right supremacist movement and, if I was Germany, I would be talking about ideas on how to temper it.



posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 07:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
We know there is no freedom of the press anymore.

Yet, here you still are.



posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 07:07 PM
link   
a reply to: reldra

Well maybe Merkel needs to look at the root causes of it instead of blaming free press for it. Did this movement exist because she more or less abolished Germany's borders and tried to drown her native population in a bunch of foreign invaders?

If not, I think that maybe she's found her problem.



posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 07:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: reldra

Well maybe Merkel needs to look at the root causes of it instead of blaming free press for it. Did this movement exist because she more or less abolished Germany's borders and tried to drown her native population in a bunch of foreign invaders?

If not, I think that maybe she's found her problem.


Germany has existing restrictions on the press. Hate speech is illegal. If anything, she is looking for ways ton enforce their laws there.



posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 07:16 PM
link   
a reply to: reldra

Yes, how dare the press report about the incidences of crime associated with the newcomers and their general lack of assimilation into German society? That's what Merkel wants to control.

Also, "hate" is highly subjective.



posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 07:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: reldra

Yes, how dare the press report about the incidences of crime associated with the newcomers and their general lack of assimilation into German society? That's what Merkel wants to control.

Also, "hate" is highly subjective.


Well, as to the definition of 'hate speech' there, one must present German law here.

Also, why would she want to control that? I would think the laws evenly apply. Reports of immigrant crime are readily available. The white supremacy nuts are just going way too far there.

White sumpremacy movements are on the rise in the US, but in some places in Europe it has become a dangerous emergency.
edit on 18-11-2016 by reldra because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 07:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: reldra

Well maybe Merkel needs to look at the root causes of it instead of blaming free press for it. Did this movement exist because she more or less abolished Germany's borders and tried to drown her native population in a bunch of foreign invaders?

If not, I think that maybe she's found her problem.


It is possible that fueled the fire of lunatics, but it has gone farther than that. The internet has allowed them to recruit more. Just as the internet has assisted Muslin extreemists. They don't want either.

She can make some moves on this point quickly as the laws are different there.



posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 08:01 PM
link   
a reply to: reldra

How is it possible that on, pretty much, 100% of the posts I see you reply to, you can never answer the question. You have to muddy the topic and make excuses for your position (not facts)? You and Annee both do it's BLOODY infuriating.

Do you defend the actions or not? Do you want the internet to be regulated or not? Do you want free speech online or not? Simple questions.

I, for one, don't need my opinions 'steered' for me. I'm a big boy, I can read my own news sources and cross reference thanks. I don't need Google or any other VESTED INTEREST telling me what news is 'acceptable'. Do you Reldra?

Don't beat around the bush either, don't answer with a question like you always do. Do YOU want the internet 'steered' Reldra?
edit on 11/10/2012 by Joneselius because: (no reason given)

edit on 11/10/2012 by Joneselius because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 08:14 PM
link   
I think what Merkel is talking about is the "response" to the Trump Aphorisms that we see in so many of the ATS threads.
What better place to moderate than the internet forums?



posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 08:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: reldra



edit on 18-11-2016 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 09:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: reldra

Yet, here you still are.


It's obvious you don't understand the difference between "mainstream media" and "alternative news media".

We know in the past you have shown, alongside many other people in the left, a disposition to suppress opinions and news you don't agree with... You might, or might not know it, but that's how authoritarian and suppressive regimes operate.
edit on 18-11-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.



posted on Nov, 19 2016 @ 04:50 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

See, here is the thing.

There IS something wrong with pure populism, but ONLY if that populism insists on simplicity. "Things", Einstein is quoted as saying, "should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler". Ergo, that which must by definition, be complicated, must remain somewhat complicated. That which can be simplified without causing harm, must be. That which cannot be reduced in complexity must be respected for what it is.

I would argue that it is possible to have a populist movement which does not rely on general ignorance, but only in the event that such a movement is powered by everyone at grass roots, all faiths, colours and creeds. If it is not, then it poses a threat to liberty, one which the people themselves must not tolerate.



posted on Nov, 19 2016 @ 07:41 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

Eloquent I doubt anyone could improve on that explanation!


how did Donald trump start his rating at 1800


I came across this joke on chess.com this morning and it inspired some introverted analysis.
The Trump populist opening moves are far removed from any true end game policy adoptions IMHO.
The net result is an increase in complexity that can even assimilate grass root thinking.

In this particular case Merkel has felt the need to respond with a call for government control.
No surprise there considering the historic foisted stereotype from "The will to power".
We all saw how low in the pyramid the Mein Kampf move played.

Other countries are also considering limiting internet access.
For example I read there was concern in China about the trend of their youth consuming "K pop".
Seemed innocuous to me but there might be something to it.




posted on Nov, 19 2016 @ 07:47 AM
link   
There actually is a conversation to be had about the effects of electronic propagandization upon a populace - as there are some very real and relatively new concerns to be addressed.

Prior to the digital age infiltration took massive amounts of effort. Getting an agent provocateur into a group, organization or society took incredible amounts of resources and luck. Today?

Well today it's as easy as slapping an American flag on an avatar and throwing in some triggering populist buzzwords.



posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 07:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Hefficide

And if there is any type of control whomever controls the media, which would be the government, would censor news that they don't want people to read. That is not freedom of the press or freedom of speech.



posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 07:24 PM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

The thing is this nation was founded to respect and defend all cultural differences, all religious differences, and in general it was made to respect the rights of the people whether they are a minority or majority. However, there is a "populist group" that has been working overtime for decades to deny rights to people simply because "that populist movement" wants it to happen.

The goal of this "populist movement" goes against what this nation is about. Forcing people to pay for abortions, which millions of people see as being wrong and being murder is wrong to do. Imposing the will of a minority group on the majority of the people is also wrong, such as President Obama and his administration has done forcing religious institutions to accept and perform same sex marriages. instead what should have been done is a compromise respecting both views.

The rights and the views of everyone should be respected, but instead the will of the few has been imposed on the majority. This in itself is also the reason why so many Americans voted for Trump. To try to break away from the government mandating people how they should live their lives or what they should believe. The religious views, and the way of life of everyone should be respected and defended.



edit on 22-11-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 01:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

The goal of this "populist movement" goes against what this nation is about. Forcing people to pay for abortions, which millions of people see as being wrong and being murder is wrong to do.

Millions...fair enough. But what about the majority of people? Would you argue that a statistical analysis of the whole of America, would hold that more people believe it is murder than believe it is a valid and ethically sound medical procedure? I KNOW America in general is far smarter than that!


Imposing the will of a minority group on the majority of the people is also wrong, such as President Obama and his administration has done forcing religious institutions to accept and perform same sex marriages. instead what should have been done is a compromise respecting both views.

Are you telling me that you believe that if a gay couple walk into a Roman Catholic Church, where the "priest" does not agree with same sex marriage in the least, that they can force that clergy person to marry them? That is not the understanding I have of the situation. As far as I understand it, the legislation passed merely means that the practice is not outlawed, and that such a marriage would have all the same legal protections, benefits, and attendant elements as it pertains to civil perception, as would a marriage between any other two individuals. There is a very big difference between offering clergy the opportunity to do a thing without breaking the law, and forcing them to do something against their will.


The rights and the views of everyone should be respected, but instead the will of the few has been imposed on the majority. This in itself is also the reason why so many Americans voted for Trump. To try to break away from the government mandating people how they should live their lives or what they should believe. The religious views, and the way of life of everyone should be respected and defended.

I agree with you, but that holds that everyone has access to and understands the facts. From what you stated above, it's pretty clear that there is no understanding of the majority opinion on abortion, nor is there the necessary understanding of what gay marriage law is and is not, and that implies that there is a great deal of misinformation and hoodwinkery going on more generally. Unless people are informed, how can they form opinion at all, whether they are in the majority or not?




top topics



 
11

log in

join