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.

 

Clinton Says Internet Censorship Harmful to Governments

page: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 

Haha. Exactly. Your classic double-edged sword. They're struggling to get this straight in their heads. If we leave it on, people will stay glued to it and won't take action. If we shut it off, they'll get pissed. That al Jazeera reporter wasn't far off the mark at all, eh?

Edit to Add: In other words, how to we leave them with the illusion of freedom while totally controlling them? Makes sense to me. You all are convincing me totally.
edit on 2/15/2011 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


No chance at all that you might be mistrusting their motives and misinterpreting an effort to guard our companies against cyberterrorism as control? I see what you're saying, but I'm still on the fence about this one, and admit I have more homework to do on the subject.


I don't see this as having much to do with Hackers and the Anonymous bunch, or Wikileaks. Those are just current events they are using to justify.

We need to not forget the first two years of Obama and their attempts to silence the opposition in the media. I see the problem as being who decides what information to block and should any government have that kind of control.

I've made no secret Assange lost my support when it became apparent his motives where not as advertised, but the idea of blocking Wikileaks or any speech for that matter, is abhorrent to me and unacceptable.

I'd say look to history where we can plainly see that any power given to any government is always abused. I'm not buying their reasoning and in this case its calling for global control, which is even worse. It's the equivalent of book burnings no matter what the cause.

I'm clearly basing my opinion on past actions and statements by members of the Obama Administration. With these people it's all about maintaining power at any cost, by any means. The power to control the Internet is like a loaded gun; I can give a loaded gun to some people and be confident I'm safe, but if I give that same loaded gun to the wrong person, I'm screwed. Give the power to allow or disallow Internet content to the wrong people and we are all screwed. Since once that power exists it will be handed down from person to person, power to power, that it will be abused is a given.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 

Ah. Thanks for the explanation. The short of my response is, I've looked hard, and I don't see this administration as doing any more or less than past administrations to either silence or control the media. This is something that's a pet peeve of mine, and I've had an eye on it since journalism school. Accounting for variables that change as technology changes, they really haven't done any more than even say the three administrations before them. It was probably more flagrant under the Bush administration. I also don't view them calling the media out on their nonsense as silencing or controlling but simply as...well...calling them out. But I understand where you're coming from.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 


I'm not taking sides here. I view both Parties with equal mistrust and disdain. Either side would abuse such power and I trust neither side.

People always seem to assume if you criticize one Party you are part of the other. That is how they want us to react and we are programed to think that way. I woke up to the fact both Parties are the same many years ago.

What I'm saying is that this is too much power for any group or entity to wield. No matter the professed reasons behind it, it will be used wrongly.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   
Unless its the u.s government doing the censorship - in which case its allowed.
Really you lot should leash hillary .. Bad enough constant u.s meddling around the world without inflicting hillary on people - thats cruel and unusual punishment.. Think u.s upset that asia has more freedom than they do.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 

Understood. I didn't assume or mean to imply you were, if that's how I came across. I don't take sides either. To me they're all repulsive.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 


How do we reconcile this official position with the fact that the US Government is going after Wikileaks?

Good catch. S&F



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 

Thanks. The apparent dichotomy here really isn't. Exactly why I thought this might be important to post.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 05:27 PM
link   
The mental block necessary for the leader of the US state department to write that article and not see a problem is impressive, most impressive indeed.

The hypocrisy is strong with this one.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by justwokeup
 

It is. It's almost like they're floundering...can't wrap their heads around how to both control it and use it. I think, and have thought for over well over a decade now, that the whole evolution of the internet has thrown both governments and corporations for a loop and into a reactive frenzy. They gain ground and it gets another step ahead of them. Fascinating stuff to watch from that perspective.




top topics



 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join