Globalist Columnist Calls for Internet “Quality Control” to Quash Dissent

Written by Paul Fromm

Saturday, 28 January 2012 02:54

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This email newsletter was sent to you in graphical HTML format. If you're seeing this version, your email program prefers plain text emails. You can read the original version online: http://ymlp217.net/ztfTMr -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Some ads are provided by Google They are not endorsed by The New American Globalist Columnist Calls for Internet “Quality Control” to Quash Dissent ( http://thenewamerican.com/tech-mainmenu-30/computers/10656-columnist-calls-for-internet-quality-control-to-quash-dissent ) | Print | ( http://thenewamerican.com/tech-mainmenu-30/computers/10656-columnist-calls-for-internet-quality-control-to-quash-dissent?tmpl=component&print=1&layout=default&page= ) Written by Michael Tennant Wednesday, 25 January 2012 10:50 ( http://thenewamerican.com/component/mailto/?tmpl=component&link=aHR0cDovL3RoZW5ld2FtZXJpY2FuLmNvbS90ZWNoLW1haW5tZW51LTMwL2NvbXB1dGVycy8xMDY1Ni1jb2x1bW5pc3QtY2FsbHMtZm9yLWludGVybmV0LXF1YWxpdHktY29udHJvbC10by1xdWFzaC1kaXNzZW50 ) Do you think anthropogenic global warming is a hoax? Are you unconvinced that your ancestors had more in common with Cheetah than with Tarzan? Have you any doubts about the official version of how 9/11 went down? Then you, according to Evgeny ( http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2012/01/anti_vaccine_activists_9_11_deniers_and_google_s_social_search_.html )Morozov, are part of a “kooky” “fringe movement” whose growth must be checked by forcing you to read “authoritative” content whenever you go looking for information on such topics on the Internet. Morozov is a visiting scholar at Stanford University, a contributing editor to Foreign Policy magazine, and a former fellow at George Soros’ Open Society Institute — in other words, a reliable bellwether of globalist establishment thinking. His musings in Slate — in which he argues that while outright censorship of the web may not be possible, getting browsers and search engines to direct people to establishment-approved opinions would be an excellent idea — offer “proof of how worried the bad guys are about popular disbelief in State pieties, and about sites … that stoke it,” Lew Rockwell ( http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/104409.html ) averred, citing his own website as an example. The New American undoubtedly would fall under that rubric as well. The problem, as Morozov sees it, is that people who “deny” global warming or think vaccines may cause autism — opinions that conflict with those proffered by governments, the United Nations, and other globalist organizations — can post anything they want on the Internet with “little or no quality control” over it. As a result, he says, there are “thousands of sites that undermine scientific consensus, overturn well-established facts, and promote conspiracy theories.” In addition, Morozov worries that those searching for information on a disputed topic will, because of the way search engines are structured, tend to find sites giving the politically incorrect version of events first and may never get around to reading the “authoritative” sources on the subject. “Meanwhile,” he argues, “the move toward social search may further insulate regular visitors to such sites; discovering even more links found by their equally paranoid friends will hardly enlighten them.” Then comes the big question with the foreordained answer: “Is it time for some kind of a quality control system?” Morozov, not surprisingly, replies strongly in the affirmative. Since dissuading those already committed to these outré views may be impossible, he thinks “resources should go into thwarting their growth by targeting their potential — rather than existent — members.” “Given that censorship of search engines is not an appealing or even particularly viable option” — note that he doesn’t say he opposes censorship per se — Morozov argues for changes to browsers and search engines that would notify users that they are about to see something that the self-appointed arbiters of acceptable opinion have deemed unfit for human consumption and, if possible, direct them elsewhere. He suggests two approaches to ensuring that web searchers are not exposed to unapproved thoughts: One is to train our browsers to flag information that may be suspicious or disputed. Thus, every time a claim like “vaccination leads to autism” appears in our browser, that sentence would be marked in red — perhaps, also accompanied by a pop-up window advising us to check a more authoritative source. The trick here is to come up with a database of disputed claims that itself would correspond to the latest consensus in modern science — a challenging goal that projects like “Dispute Finder ( http://confront.intel-research.net/Dispute_Finder.html )” are tackling head on. The second — and not necessarily mutually exclusive — option is to nudge search engines to take more responsibility for their index and exercise a heavier curatorial control in presenting search results for issues like “global warming” or “vaccination.” Google already has a list of search queries that send most traffic to sites that trade in pseudoscience and conspiracy theories; why not treat them differently than normal queries? Thus, whenever users are presented with search results that are likely to send them to sites run by pseudoscientists or conspiracy theorists, Google may simply display a huge red banner asking users to exercise caution and check a previously generated list of authoritative resources before making up their minds. Morozov admits that his suggestions “may seem paternalistic” and “might trigger conspiracy theories of [their] own — e.g., is Google shilling for Big Pharma or for Al Gore?” However, he concludes, it is “a risk worth taking as long as it can help thwart the growth of fringe movements.” In fact, he adds, Google should “atone for its sins” of inventing “social search” (whereby links shared by one’s friends are presented more prominently than others) by “ensur[ing] that subjects dominated by pseudoscience and conspiracy theories are given a socially responsible curated treatment.” Morozov’s concerns about the Internet’s openness to anti-establishment views are not new among the power elite. As far back as 1998, then-First Lady Hillary Clinton bemoaned the lack of a “gate-keeping function” that allows anyone to post anything on the web. Morozov’s proposed solutions to this perceived problem are not exactly original, either, as Paul Joseph Watson ( http://www.infowars.com/soros-mouthpiece-calls-on-google-to-police-conspiracy-theories/ ) observed at Infowars.com: [Morozov’s contention] represents a similar argument to Cass Sunstein’s “cognitive infiltration,” an effort by Obama’s information czar to slap government warnings on controversial websites ( http://prisonplanet.com/obama-czar-wants-mandatory-government-propaganda-on-political-websites.html ) (including those claiming that exposure to sunlight is healthy). In a widely derided white paper ( http://prisonplanet.com/obama-information-czar-calls-for-banning-free-speech.html ), Sunstein called for political blogs to be forced to include pop ups that show “a quick argument for a competing view.” He also demanded that taxes be levied on dissenting opinions and even suggested that outright bans on certain thoughts should be enforced. Indeed, notes Watson, “Morozov’s rhetoric is merely one aspect of the wider move to turn the Internet into an echo chamber of establishment propaganda.” We can, therefore, expect calls for Internet censorship to continue and even become more pronounced. Many people thus have good reason to fear that the Stop Online Piracy Act ( http://thenewamerican.com/tech-mainmenu-30/computers/10590-is-sopa-on-the-ropes ) (SOPA) is a back door to government censorship of the web. Clearly the globalist establishment is running scared. As the anti-SOPA blackout and the popularity of Ron Paul attest, the Internet is enabling individuals to see through the smokescreen of propaganda emanating from Washington and to mobilize effectively against threats to their liberties. In fact, that very free flow of information on the web may be the one thing standing between the elites and their dreams of — as Watson put it — “Chinese-style thought control.” _____________________________ Unsubscribe / Change Profile: http://ymlp217.net/ugmjhqsqgsgbbqgeew Powered by YourMailingListProvider

 

Globalist Columnist Calls for Internet “Quality Control” to Quash Dissent

Written by Paul Fromm

Saturday, 28 January 2012 02:46

<http://thenewamerican.com/component/banners/click/55> <http://thenewamerican.com/component/banners/click/84> <http://thenewamerican.com/component/banners/click/118> Some ads are provided by Google They are not endorsed by The New American ** ** Globalist Columnist Calls for Internet “Quality Control” to Quash Dissent<http://thenewamerican.com/tech-mainmenu-30/computers/10656-columnist-calls-for-internet-quality-control-to-quash-dissent> **| Print |<http://thenewamerican.com/tech-mainmenu-30/computers/10656-columnist-calls-for-internet-quality-control-to-quash-dissent?tmpl=component&print=1&layout=default&page=> <http://thenewamerican.com/component/mailto/?tmpl=component&link=aHR0cDovL3RoZW5ld2FtZXJpY2FuLmNvbS90ZWNoLW1haW5tZW51LTMwL2NvbXB1dGVycy8xMDY1Ni1jb2x1bW5pc3QtY2FsbHMtZm9yLWludGVybmV0LXF1YWxpdHktY29udHJvbC10by1xdWFzaC1kaXNzZW50> Written by Michael Tennant Wednesday, 25 January 2012 10:50 <http://www.google.com/buzz/post> Do you think anthropogenic global warming is a hoax? Are you unconvinced that your ancestors had more in common with Cheetah than with Tarzan? Have you any doubts about the official version of how 9/11 went down? Then you, according to Evgeny <http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2012/01/anti_vaccine_activists_9_11_deniers_and_google_s_social_search_.html>Morozov, are part of a “kooky” “fringe movement” whose growth must be checked by forcing you to read “authoritative” content whenever you go looking for information on such topics on the Internet. Morozov is a visiting scholar at Stanford University, a contributing editor to *Foreign Policy *magazine, and a former fellow at George Soros’ Open Society Institute — in other words, a reliable bellwether of globalist establishment thinking. His musings in *Slate *— in which he argues that while outright censorship of the web may not be possible, getting browsers and search engines to direct people to establishment-approved opinions would be an excellent idea — offer “proof of how worried the bad guys are about popular disbelief in *State* pieties, and about sites … that stoke it,” Lew Rockwell<http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/104409.html>averred, citing his own website as an example. *The New American *undoubtedly would fall under that rubric as well. The problem, as Morozov sees it, is that people who “deny” global warming or think vaccines may cause autism — opinions that conflict with those proffered by governments, the United Nations, and other globalist organizations — can post anything they want on the Internet with “little or no quality control” over it. As a result, he says, there are “thousands of sites that undermine scientific consensus, overturn well-established facts, and promote conspiracy theories.” In addition, Morozov worries that those searching for information on a disputed topic will, because of the way search engines are structured, tend to find sites giving the politically incorrect version of events first and may never get around to reading the “authoritative” sources on the subject. “Meanwhile,” he argues, “the move toward social search may further insulate regular visitors to such sites; discovering even more links found by their equally paranoid friends will hardly enlighten them.” Then comes the big question with the foreordained answer: “Is it time for some kind of a quality control system?” Morozov, not surprisingly, replies strongly in the affirmative. Since dissuading those already committed to these outré views may be impossible, he thinks “resources should go into thwarting their growth by targeting their potential — rather than existent — members.” “Given that censorship of search engines is not an appealing or even particularly viable option” — note that he doesn’t say he opposes censorship *per se *— Morozov argues for changes to browsers and search engines that would notify users that they are about to see something that the self-appointed arbiters of acceptable opinion have deemed unfit for human consumption and, if possible, direct them elsewhere. He suggests two approaches to ensuring that web searchers are not exposed to unapproved thoughts: One is to train our browsers to flag information that may be suspicious or disputed. Thus, every time a claim like “vaccination leads to autism” appears in our browser, that sentence would be marked in red — perhaps, also accompanied by a pop-up window advising us to check a more authoritative source. The trick here is to come up with a database of disputed claims that itself would correspond to the latest consensus in modern science — a challenging goal that projects like “Dispute Finder<http://confront.intel-research.net/Dispute_Finder.html>” are tackling head on. The second — and not necessarily mutually exclusive — option is to nudge search engines to take more responsibility for their index and exercise a heavier curatorial control in presenting search results for issues like “global warming” or “vaccination.” Google already has a list of search queries that send most traffic to sites that trade in pseudoscience and conspiracy theories; why not treat them differently than normal queries? Thus, whenever users are presented with search results that are likely to send them to sites run by pseudoscientists or conspiracy theorists, Google may simply display a huge red banner asking users to exercise caution and check a previously generated list of authoritative resources before making up their minds. Morozov admits that his suggestions “may seem paternalistic” and “might trigger conspiracy theories of [their] own — e.g., is Google shilling for Big Pharma or for Al Gore?” However, he concludes, it is “a risk worth taking as long as it can help thwart the growth of fringe movements.” In fact, he adds, Google should “atone for its sins” of inventing “social search” (whereby links shared by one’s friends are presented more prominently than others) by “ensur[ing] that subjects dominated by pseudoscience and conspiracy theories are given a socially responsible curated treatment.” Morozov’s concerns about the Internet’s openness to anti-establishment views are not new among the power elite. As far back as 1998, then-First Lady Hillary Clinton bemoaned the lack of a “gate-keeping function” that allows anyone to post anything on the web. Morozov’s proposed solutions to this perceived problem are not exactly original, either, as Paul Joseph Watson<http://www.infowars.com/soros-mouthpiece-calls-on-google-to-police-conspiracy-theories/>observed at Infowars.com: [Morozov’s contention] represents a similar argument to Cass Sunstein’s “cognitive infiltration,” an effort by Obama’s information czar to slap government warnings on controversial websites<http://prisonplanet.com/obama-czar-wants-mandatory-government-propaganda-on-political-websites.html>(including those claiming that exposure to sunlight is healthy). In a widely derided white paper<http://prisonplanet.com/obama-information-czar-calls-for-banning-free-speech.html>, Sunstein called for political blogs to be forced to include pop ups that show “a quick argument for a competing view.” He also demanded that taxes be levied on dissenting opinions and even suggested that outright bans on certain thoughts should be enforced. Indeed, notes Watson, “Morozov’s rhetoric is merely one aspect of the wider move to turn the Internet into an echo chamber of establishment propaganda.” We can, therefore, expect calls for Internet censorship to continue and even become more pronounced. Many people thus have good reason to fear that the Stop Online Piracy Act<http://thenewamerican.com/tech-mainmenu-30/computers/10590-is-sopa-on-the-ropes>(SOPA) is a back door to government censorship of the web. Clearly the globalist establishment is running scared. As the anti-SOPA blackout and the popularity of Ron Paul attest, the Internet is enabling individuals to see through the smokescreen of propaganda emanating from Washington and to mobilize effectively against threats to their liberties. In fact, that very free flow of information on the web may be the one thing standing between the elites and their dreams of — as Watson put it — “Chinese-style thought control.”

 

The "Immigrant Poem" -- This Was One of the Grounds for the Warman Complaint Against

Written by Paul Fromm

Wednesday, 25 January 2012 05:06

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This email newsletter was sent to you in graphical HTML format. If you're seeing this version, your email program prefers plain text emails. You can read the original version online: http://ymlp207.net/znm2oq -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The "Immigrant Poem" -- This Was One of the Grounds for the Warman Complaint Against Marc Lemire & The Freedomsite The following piece of doggerel satire has been floating around the office water cooler for at least 30 years. Usually called "The Immigrant Poem," this appeared on Marc Lemire's Freedomsite, minus the animated cartoons. It was one of eight passages cited by chronic complainer Richard Warman as an allegation that Mr. Lemire's site was "likely to expose" privileged groups "to hatred or contempt." When we in the Canadian Association for Free Expression warn that "contempt" means any criticism of a privileged group, I sometimes get the feeling people think we exaggerate. They imagine "hate" as being calls for some homicidal policy of horrors. Not so, even a humorous critique of the goodies extended to hordes or mostly Third World immigrants would be forbidden. "I'm Having to Defend the Telling of Jokes," Marc Lemire's lawyer Barbara told the Tribunal hearing, September 17, 2008. She said that she was having to defend "jokes and trivia." "The law shouldn't concern itself with 'trivia. This law has gone mad." Indeed it has. In a revealing address to Anti-Racist Action, a group often involved in violence against dissidents in Toronto in the summer of 2005, Warman described his goal as "shutting down the neo-Nazis by (almost) any means necessary." In the Lemire hearing he demanded that the Freedomsite itself -- not just a few passages -- be shut down. That is the demand of the Canadian Human Rights Commission in another Warman instigated complaint. The CHRC wants Terry Tremaine to shut down his NSPC website, even though it contains many mainstream photos films and texts, along with several which had been cited by Warman as offending the wide scope of Sec. 13 The "contempt of court" ruling used to enforce the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal's censorship goals is now headed to the Supreme Court of Canada. The huge scope of Sec. 13 for suppressing views disapproved of by the politically correct class is one key reason why this evil law must go. We await the ruling of a Federal Court judge in the Lemire case. At the same time, Bill C-304, a private member's bill reintroduced by Brian Storseth MP is working its way through the House of Commons. Have you called or written your MP to urge him to support Bill C-304? Paul Fromm Director CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION I cross ocean, poor and broke. Take bus, see employment folk. Nice man treat me good in there. Say I need to see welfare. Welfare say, 'You come no more, we send cash right to your door. " Welfare checks - they make you wealthy! Medicare - it keep you healthy! By and by, I get plenty money. Thanks to you, you Canadian dummy! Write to friends in motherland. Tell them 'come fast as you can. " They come in turbans and Toyota trucks, And buy big house with welfare bucks! They come here, we live together. More welfare checks, it gets better! Fourteen families, they moving in, But neighbor's patience wearing thin. Finally, Canadian guy moves away. Now I buy his house, then I say, 'Find more immigrants for house to rent. " And in the yard I put a tent. Everything is very good, And soon we own the neighborhood. We have hobby, it's called breeding. Welfare pay for baby feeding. Kids need dentist? Wives need pills? We get free! We got no bills! Canadian crazy! They work all year, to keep the welfare running here. We think Canada darn good place. Too darn good for Canadian race! If they no like us, they can scram. Got lots of room in Pakistan ! _____________________________ Unsubscribe / Change Profile: http://ymlp207.net/ugmjhqsqgsgbbqgeeh Powered by YourMailingListProvider