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.

 

Without the Internet We're Lost

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 09:58 PM
link   
Ladies and gentlemen, whilst i understand that most people realise the importance of teh internet, there are many who don't.

The internet is the last place of true free speech, if you make a political point in america on american politics that point can be distributed across the world in mere seconds. The current push to privatise the internet will do a few things.

1) It will obliterate the independant speech.

Right now, some enterprising and patriotic person could be sitting in the records of any major democracy, reporting on little known bills and actions and keeping the populou informed of what their government is up to. Mainstream journalists are confined by their jobs and emplyers in what they report, either becuase they're asked to report whats' popular or becuase of the political ideal behind a contributor of funds.

2) Currently if i want to set up a website promoting an unpopular but lawful message i am allowed to do so. the funding for that comes from me, rather cheaply and if it becomes popular i can get advertising to support it. I might run at an eqaluibrium or even a slight loss but my message gets out there.

With the privatisation of the internet this will stop. Private people like me, reporting onthing si believe will stop, we will beome like radio and end up commercilised, we will be stifled in our views and not given the truth.

3) the end result.

The end result will be that the internet, the last bastion of truth wil be destroyed. We wil be left with news only frm official governmental soucrs and whilst many people think the governemnt tells them the truth this runs into difficulty. the media avoids many topics, either because they can't afford to cover it or it goes against their original construct.

Darfur, most of Africa, Indonesia or many other places are simply not reported in mainstream media. Science itself isn't covered in mainstream media unless it's something they deem imporant. I subsrcribe to 4 or 5 scientific journals per month/3 months and half the important items aren't reporte at all in the mainstream media.

I beg everyone here to go out and tell everyone the importance of the internet, because most people won't realise what they have until it's gone. One day when he internet closes as it was, when they can't access the sites that they liked. When they have to pay for each and every block of information they enjoyed reading. Only then wil most people realise what they've lost.

I give my thanks, admiration and luck to anyone who publishes a page with only 4 users, who access it in the hope of acuiring truth and finding facts.




posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 10:34 PM
link   

With the privatisation of the internet this will stop. Private people like me, reporting onthing si believe will stop, we will beome like radio and end up commercilised, we will be stifled in our views and not given the truth.


But doesn't this mean that we need another economic system altogether? If you are allowed to own property, why shouldn't you be able to buy internet sites, for example?


The end result will be that the internet, the last bastion of truth wil be destroyed. We wil be left with news only frm official governmental soucrs and whilst many people think the governemnt tells them the truth this runs into difficulty.


Are you sure? During the Soviet Union, there were numerous underground news sources. Wouldn't this be the same for people opposing the Nazi regime in Germany during 1933-1945?

Adding to this - no longer can news contain huge amounts of lies and manipulations, as much of the internet is made up of, true newspapers will contain important topics, would it not?


the media avoids many topics, either because they can't afford to cover it or it goes against their original construct.


They can afford it, allright. The question is if they really want to discuss documentaries like "Orwell Rolls In His Grave"...


Science itself isn't covered in mainstream media unless it's something they deem imporant.


Well, there isn't much that is to be reported from science. How many people are interested in how a sattelite is built, compared to one that takes pictures of Mars or Titan? In that case, there are numerous of scientific-based magazines specifically written for those who want in-depth reports of science-machines.


I subsrcribe to 4 or 5 scientific journals per month/3 months and half the important items aren't reporte at all in the mainstream media.


What do you think is missing from these journals?


I beg everyone here to go out and tell everyone the importance of the internet, because most people won't realise what they have until it's gone.


Or, maybe people will really go out and do something instead of sitting before their computer screens? A representative is more inclined to do something when a person is standing before him than to read that person's e-mail, right?


One day when he internet closes as it was, when they can't access the sites that they liked. When they have to pay for each and every block of information they enjoyed reading. Only then wil most people realise what they've lost.


But, and as I said above, wouldn't this motivate people - who are really interested in political topics - to go out and do something for real? Besides, don't we already pay for accessing the internet? How many people can access it for free? Now, I know that as a student, that can be possible, but you know, we aren't students for our whole lives.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 11:02 PM
link   

ImaginaryReality1984With the privatisation of the internet this will stop. Private people like me, reporting something i believe will stop, we will become like radio and end up commercilised, we will be stifled in our views and not given the truth.



Originally posted by Karras
But doesn't this mean that we need another economic system altogether? If you are allowed to own property, why shouldn't you be able to buy internet sites, for example?


No it doens't mean we need a seperate system, the internet already exists without a seperate system and to not see that is the height of stupidity. We already own the internet, i can buy a web domain, some space and promote whatever i want. YHou obviously are lacking in you r understanding of the internet and whats coming. The ifference is that in future i won't be able to do this, the corporations will own it and i own't be able to buy my own space unless i'm rich, even then it wil be difficult as they wil own the bandwidth.



ImaginaryReality1984The end result will be that the internet, the last bastion of truth wil be destroyed. We wil be left with news only frm official governmental soucrs and whilst many people think the governemnt tells them the truth this runs into difficulty.



Originally posted by Karras
Are you sure? During the Soviet Union, there were numerous underground news sources. Wouldn't this be the same for people opposing the Nazi regime in Germany during 1933-1945?

Adding to this - no longer can news contain huge amounts of lies and manipulations, as much of the internet is made up of, true newspapers will contain important topics, would it not?


Underground? The resources underground were distributed by paper. The internet doesn't work the same way. If they implemented hardware blocks then no, we wouldn't get anything out that they didn't want o be out there. I'm not a NWO believer here i just want the internet to remain free and by "they" i simply mean corporate media which by it's very nature has apolitical bias.


ImaginaryReality1984the media avoids many topics, either because they can't afford to cover it or it goes against their original construct.



Originally posted by Karras
They can afford it, allright. The question is if they really want to discuss documentaries like "Orwell Rolls In His Grave"...


By afford i meant internally. Not many media resources want to discuss certain things because of the repecussions. If you criticise a company like monsanto then you better be ready for a massive lawsuit. Despite your idea that they can afford it, people like the BBC, despite their large pool of money is nothing compared to monsanto. If you think they can manage sucha large company then you're living ina dream world. They would rather take the easy road and pull any documentary criticising it.


ImaginaryReality1984Science itself isn't covered in mainstream media unless it's something they deem imporant.



Originally posted by Karras
Well, there isn't much that is to be reported from science. How many people are interested in how a sattelite is built, compared to one that takes pictures of Mars or Titan? In that case, there are numerous of scientific-based magazines specifically written for those who want in-depth reports of science-machines.


That's the problem you havn't seen! That's the whole point! It's not about whose interested. If i post a website only 4 peple are interested in then i should be allowed ot have it as long as i can pay for the web hosting. They are trying to stifle free speech online. It's not just about science here, we're about alternative subjects, monitoring our governments and other areas. Many of the problems with our current goverment are NOT covered in mainstream media, many of the UK papers skip it entirely. Its not their fault they havea lot to cover but a single individual, with careful reach can put it up on his or her webpage and expose an awful lot. That's what i want to keep. If the new internet comes into being this personw ill be squeezed out and we'll be left with only mainstream media reports who don't report the issues through either ignorance or purpose.



ImaginaryReality1984I subsrcribe to 4 or 5 scientific journals per month/3 months and half the important items aren't reporte at all in the mainstream media.



Originally posted by Karras
What do you think is missing from these journals?


From the journals? Not much. However the general public doesn't hear fromt hese journals unless it's reported from the internet. I have seen many ground breaking studies from these journals broken on the internet rather than mainstream press, only to be picked up months later in the mainstream press because it got to big on the internet. If it weren't on the internet they may never have reported it and the public would stil be unawares. Most importantly i think it's a good idea to keep an independant press, and what is more independant than a resourcse that is anoymous and open to anyone?


ImaginaryReality1984I beg everyone here to go out and tell everyone the importance of the internet, because most people won't realise what they have until it's gone.



Originally posted by Karras
Or, maybe people will really go out and do something instead of sitting before their computer screens? A representative is more inclined to do something when a person is standing before him than to read that person's e-mail, right?


That's where your'e wrong. In our age the e-mail rules all. These peopel will follow popular opinion to stay in power. People who are interested online are usulayy those who are interested in real life. Those without the internet and who don't post simply don't care, those who do post tend to be the caring voters anyway. So this point of yous is absolutely without merit. It won't encourage anything if they don't have the internet.



ImaginaryReality1984One day when he internet closes as it was, when they can't access the sites that they liked. When they have to pay for each and every block of information they enjoyed reading. Only then wil most people realise what they've lost.



Originally posted by Karras
But, and as I said above, wouldn't this motivate people - who are really interested in political topics - to go out and do something for real? Besides, don't we already pay for accessing the internet? How many people can access it for free? Now, I know that as a student, that can be possible, but you know, we aren't students for our whole lives.


I never said we access it for free. I said we can pay to advertise whatever we want. It costs very little, in future if i set up a site that becomes popular i have to cover that cost and i woudln't be able to. Lets put it this way, sites like myspace, youtube, facebook and digg to name a few would not be possible in the new internet without advanced corporate funding. Having avanced fudning means political ideals are already in place and bias is common.

It wounld'nt encourage political people already interested to vote, because anyone interested in voting is already doing so.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 11:13 PM
link   
People lived without the internet going public in 1994 and im sure they could live without it today.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 11:19 PM
link   
reply to post by alienstar
 


I was using the internet before then, just to make it clear
Ahh the days of the 14.4k modem, bulliten boards and telnet
When windows was a mere twinkle in bill gates eyes, when my computer had a 33mhz processor *looks nostalgic*

However the media since then has been consolidated and in the end is the idea of a completely free media resource a bad thing? The information coming out of china for example is mainly sent via the internet.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 11:23 PM
link   
I remember my friends trs80 portable pc and he use to get on compuserve.That was in the early 91 i think.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 11:33 PM
link   
reply to post by alienstar
 


I don't want to go all geeky nostalgic on this thread so i'll skip over your friend, (although i feel a fellow geekdom nirvana with him/her). My point is about the current internet as a whole. The freedom of speech we have and the idea that one day, very soon, we will be corporatised and even sites like ATS wil not be able to keep up with the required funding unless they implement ads every two seconds. Even then they will only keep up becuase they're an already established website with a loyal membership.

The small person, with a revolutionary idea wil be squeezed out unless they apporach a major media outlet, and then they will be limited in what they can report. Wikileaks is a KEY example of this, that site couldn't exist in the newly coming system.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join