• Welcome to DOSBODS

     

    DOSBODS is free of any advertising.

    Ads are annoying, and - increasingly - advertising companies limit free speech online. DOSBODS Forums are completely free to use. Please create a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

     

SpectrumFX

Guardian Calls for Internet Censorship

Recommended Posts

As they find it harder to control the narrative they'll flail around, screaming and shouting like a toddler having a tantrum after dropping his choc ice on the pavement.

'Don't think for yourselves, it's our job to think for you. We realise we need to be careful with censorship, so we'll only apply it to opinions we disagree with.'

'OK Guardian. Calm down, sweetie. You can have another choc ice when we get home.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, axolotl said:

As they find it harder to control the narrative they'll flail around, screaming and shouting like a toddler having a tantrum after dropping his choc ice on the pavement.

'Don't think for yourselves, it's our job to think for you. We realise we need to be careful with censorship, so we'll only apply it to opinions we disagree with.'

'OK Guardian. Calm down, sweetie. You can have another choc ice when we get home.'

Granuid and MSM and Pols.

Genie out of bottle; plebs at the controls.

What will posh kids with point arts+hum degrees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm surprised the comments have not been closed

Quote
 
161 162

Even the Guardian, wedded to the idea of free speech

Oh my sides. The Graun's moderators delete anything that doesn't fit in with the Graun's view of the world and then the Graun has the nerve to say it's wedded to the idea of free speech.
Either you have no sense of irony whatsoever or you're just having a laugh.

 

 

Edited by JackieO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are we really saying there should be blogs, forums, and social media platforms that allow people to share opinions, discuss topics that concern them, albeit within sensible limits, nobody is arguing for a Paedophile Information Exchange,  well nobody on here anyway, maybe the odd politicians, are we saying normal people shouldn't be censored for protecting themselves against oppressive regimes, or speaking out against their own genocide ?

Are we really saying that its OK for the great unwashed, and washed, perhaps hardly educated, maybe uneducated, or even completely illiterate to have a voice ?

Are we really saying it be can sensible to condone people posting anything they want to on the internet, spreading fake news, made up stories, pushing their hidden agendas or other people's agendas, interpreting actual events using alternative facts, being regressive, inward looking, rejecting globalism, multiculturalism, positive discrimination and forced diversity. So the internet doesn't become a huge echo-chamber.

Are we really saying it shouldn't be the case that all people expressing views be qualified and approved. A fully trained journalist will have studied four years or more to earn their degree. The journalists and the mainstream media organisations they are employed by know to check their facts before reporting. They understand the importance of neutrality, fairness and balance.

Are we really saying we should support the right of every man and woman to express themselves freely concerning their own country even if, or especially if it angers their government ?

YES WE ARE !!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Bedrag Justesen said:

Are we really saying there should be blogs, forums, and social media platforms that allow people to share opinions, discuss topics that concern them, albeit within sensible limits, nobody is arguing for a Paedophile Information Exchange,  well nobody on here anyway, maybe the odd politicians, are we saying normal people shouldn't be censored for protecting themselves against oppressive regimes, or speaking out against their own genocide ?

Are we really saying that its OK for the great unwashed, and washed, perhaps hardly educated, maybe uneducated, or even completely illiterate to have a voice ?

Are we really saying it be can sensible to condone people posting anything they want to on the internet, spreading fake news, made up stories, pushing their hidden agendas or other people's agendas, interpreting actual events using alternative facts, being regressive, inward looking, rejecting globalism, multiculturalism, positive discrimination and forced diversity. So the internet doesn't become a huge echo-chamber.

Are we really saying it shouldn't be the case that all people expressing views be qualified and approved. A fully trained journalist will have studied four years or more to earn their degree. The journalists and the mainstream media organisations they are employed by know to check their facts before reporting. They understand the importance of neutrality, fairness and balance.

Are we really saying we should support the right of every man and woman to express themselves freely concerning their own country even if, or especially if it angers their government ?

YES WE ARE !!!

A friend went to journo school.

All that high faluting fact checking, training and law abiding is bs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since you’re here …

‚Ķ we have a small favour to ask. More people are reading the Guardian than ever but advertising revenues across the media are falling fast. And¬†unlike many news organisations, we haven‚Äôt put up a paywall ‚Äď we want to keep our journalism as open as we can. So you can see why we need to ask for your help. The Guardian‚Äôs independent, investigative journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe our perspective matters ‚Äď because it might well be your perspective, too.

 

 

Fuck off

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

But the claim that internet companies are wholly neutral conduits is not entirely true; nor should it be. Almost all the various links in the chain of programs that deliver the simplest of web pages to your screen are aware of the content, or could be, and will refuse to handle some of it.

Bullshit.

Any encrypted web page will be like a closed box to the internet companies. That's the whole point of encrypting web pages - and there would be no online banking, no online shopping if the middlemen could read any web page that they deliver to the end user.

Can we have censorship of fake news?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, spygirl said:

A friend went to journo school.

All that high faluting fact checking, training and law abiding is bs.

Our B.B.C. News The Papers reviewing an article on social media, former Fleet Street editor Eve Pollard made exactly this argument - highly trained professional journalists, checking their facts, honest, neutral, fair and balanced - experts after all.. The amazing Yasmin Alibhai-Brown nodded in tacit agreement.    

Granted Eve had to ask the presenter whether Mark Zuckerberg is Facebook, Youtube or Google, but let's be fair, we can't expect them to know everything.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Bedrag Justesen said:

Our B.B.C. News The Papers reviewing an article on social media, former Fleet Street editor Eve Pollard made exactly this argument - highly trained professional journalists, checking their facts, honest, neutral, fair and balanced - experts after all.. The amazing Yasmin Alibhai-Brown nodded in tacit agreement.    

Granted Eve had to ask the presenter whether Mark Zuckerberg is Facebook, Youtube or Google, but let's be fair, we can't expect them to know everything.   

Special people, cant be replaced by proles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Try criticising Islam in the Guardian's comments section and see how long the post remains.

I'm not sure whose Guardians they purport to be. It is a propaganda-rag that is proudly and openly racist; writers will use phrases like "disgustingly white" which, even if intended to be deliberately provocative and a little tongue-in-cheek, simply would not have been allowed in other circumstances.

Permissible: "the cast of 'Midsomer Murders' are disgustingly white"
Not permissible: "the cast of the recent series called 'Roots' were disgustingly black"

Posts which do not fit with their world view are swiftly removed. Indeed the amusing thing about the piece above is to scroll down the comments section and see the self-proclaimed advocates of free speech have deleted a fair number of posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Wahoo said:

Since you’re here …

‚Ķ we have a small favour to ask. More people are reading the Guardian than ever but advertising revenues across the media are falling fast. And¬†unlike many news organisations, we haven‚Äôt put up a paywall ‚Äď we want to keep our journalism as open as we can. So you can see why we need to ask for your help. The Guardian‚Äôs independent, investigative journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe our perspective matters ‚Äď because it might well be your perspective, too.

 

 

Fuck off

They are falling fast partly because of the witchhunt against alternative viewpoints being encouraged by the likes of the Guardian. C.f. LEGO and Mail Online.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, spunko2010 said:

They are falling fast partly because of the witchhunt against alternative viewpoints being encouraged by the likes of the Guardian. C.f. LEGO and Mail Online.

The Guardian "journalists" fit into that self-styled category of "progressives". Progressive = correct on all matters.

The paper is basically an echo-chamber for all manner of communist-wannabes and failed Marxists. It satisfies their needs to be told that their world view is right.

But because that world view is shared by very few people: for everyone else reading, it's like spending half an hour in a mental asylum.

The irony being that it doesn't "convert" anyone. It simply panders to a very small group of people and as a result loses a fortune.

The response to this is to ramp up the propaganda even further, thus hastening its demise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.