The internet, unchecked, is a psy-war-ops weapon available to anyone. That needs to change if we're to survive. Everyone has a media/news production agency in their pockets or on their desks capable of getting their own narrative out to millions in seconds. We need to regulate that. Most are not trained journalists with a notion of ethics, but people looking for the endorphin rush of "likes," and that new media landscape is necrotic to everything it touches.
Who gets to regulate what kind of speech? Calls to regulate speech are as problematic as unhinged hate speech spread on the Internet. Instead, I suggest we teach people that not everything they see or hear on the Internet is true and to recognize that extremists of across the political spectrum have an agenda behind their words. Would you censor me if you disagree with what I say here?
Unfortunately a large portion of the population has become addicted to adrenaline rushes. I remember many years ago hearing of some “liberal” that listened to Rush Limbaugh to get his anger aroused and then threw things at his radio.
Unfortunately most humans if not all of us are animals first and rational entities second, if at all. Democracy requires work and I haven’t seen much evidence that the majority is ready to invest the time, energy and most importantly discipline necessary to make it work well. So we are stuck limping along trying to find a functional compromise between Enlightenment era ideals and the true nature of human beings. It is always going to be nip and tuck whether a democratic republic can survive and function.
That's where constant education can make the difference. It doesn't have to be preachy. I loved California Gov. Gavin Newsom's social media sendup of Trump. It was biting satire that reached a wide audience. Unfortunately we cannot go high when those we disagree with go low. Teach in a language they will understand.
Newsom is an interesting figure. I had never paid any attention to Charlie Kirk, but decided to read the transcript of Newsom’s interview. I couldn’t tell who was saying what, so I listened to it. I don’t know what Newsom’s intent was in having Kirk on, but Kirk rolled him. At best Newsom was unprepared and let Kirk get away with blatant lies and insinuations. Even when Newsom tried to correct Kirk, Kirk talked over him so the audience could not hear, much less process Newsom’s response. Kirk managed to find opportunities to insert clearly spoken and crafted short meme information bombs.
It is easy to see why so many people criticized Newsom having him on his pod cast. Newsom blew it.
No argument with you at all. The right is far more savvy about packaging their messages than the left or the middle. They need it. When people find out what they're really selling they hate it. Like right now.
GOP and think tanks have been working on their messaging for decades & along with MSM get it out and move it fast. No time for fact checking. Dems need to do the same. Newsom may have blown the Kirk interview, but his trolling trump was brilliant.
Noble thought, re., education. The reality is and has been that such a notion is not achievable in the real world. Not everyone reading has the same 'ears' or perception abilities Candace. Thorny problems not prone to knee jerk fixes.
The censorship we need is to keep people's addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, place of work, and any other personally-identifiable information from being published without that person's consent. And names should only be publishable if the accusations related to that name are verified. As it is, simply publishing someone's name in that list seems prosecutable as defamation. Most anything can go to court; the question is, who would win.
Ah, you mean a national Internet privacy law. California passed something modeled on European privacy laws around a decade ago. Unfortunately, I believe the last time the Federal law governing the internet got updated was in 1997.
By wanting to control the internet it sounds like the psyop already worked on your feeble brain and you've been brainwashed for a long time. Because only a leftist would want to control the flow of data for their own agenda.
Impossible to regulate something so entangled in free speech. What we need to do is educate people on how to handle all the information being thrown at them so they can manage it. There will always be bad actors, we just need to learn how to spot them and disarm them.
I am all in favor of such education; however, there is a portion of the population that lacks the curiosity and interest to absorb the education and even less in actually applying it. But we do have to work with what we are given.
hooray. And keep going. A friend of a friend just reported being doxed and getting hate mail because of a post that just QUOTED Charlie while deploring violence. This is an ordinary guy, not a public figure. Shadows the the Stasi network of informers.
Isn't Enrique Tarrio an associate or former associate of Nick Fuentes, he of the Groyper Wars, who, as I understood things, was anti-Kirk?
Damn, these lunatics confuse the hell out of me. It's impossible to keep up with who's at war with who, etc. Bottom line is, isn't this still, at the end of the day, internecine warfare among their own tribe of lunatics? What is gained from building a website such as this, aside from diversion? Or maybe that's exactly the point.
IMO they're trying to control the national narrative, which involves controlling the narrative of their base. They've been working in this direction for decades. I want to believe that finally "we the people" aren't falling for it, but I've been wrong (many times) before.
Every day I learn more scary stuff I have heretofore successfully avoided. At my age, retired, homebody, attended one HANDS OFF rally and decided I'm past my "best by" date, I sit here typing/reading/typing/reading. Allison is a miracle.
Your reporting since the Kirk shooting has been phenomenal!
As is her work prior to the shooting!😉
This is a great good news story. Hooray for the white hats!
Good to hear, but man, this shit just gets more real every day. Please be safe and stay vigilant friends.
We NEED to have each others backs. Thank you for being you Allison!
Im sure you didnt want your minimum wage job being taken away
I would call that Excellent Trouble! Hat tip to you good people out there.
Excellent for those who praise evil and cower in fear in their basements yes.
The internet, unchecked, is a psy-war-ops weapon available to anyone. That needs to change if we're to survive. Everyone has a media/news production agency in their pockets or on their desks capable of getting their own narrative out to millions in seconds. We need to regulate that. Most are not trained journalists with a notion of ethics, but people looking for the endorphin rush of "likes," and that new media landscape is necrotic to everything it touches.
Who gets to regulate what kind of speech? Calls to regulate speech are as problematic as unhinged hate speech spread on the Internet. Instead, I suggest we teach people that not everything they see or hear on the Internet is true and to recognize that extremists of across the political spectrum have an agenda behind their words. Would you censor me if you disagree with what I say here?
Unfortunately a large portion of the population has become addicted to adrenaline rushes. I remember many years ago hearing of some “liberal” that listened to Rush Limbaugh to get his anger aroused and then threw things at his radio.
Unfortunately most humans if not all of us are animals first and rational entities second, if at all. Democracy requires work and I haven’t seen much evidence that the majority is ready to invest the time, energy and most importantly discipline necessary to make it work well. So we are stuck limping along trying to find a functional compromise between Enlightenment era ideals and the true nature of human beings. It is always going to be nip and tuck whether a democratic republic can survive and function.
That's where constant education can make the difference. It doesn't have to be preachy. I loved California Gov. Gavin Newsom's social media sendup of Trump. It was biting satire that reached a wide audience. Unfortunately we cannot go high when those we disagree with go low. Teach in a language they will understand.
Newsom is an interesting figure. I had never paid any attention to Charlie Kirk, but decided to read the transcript of Newsom’s interview. I couldn’t tell who was saying what, so I listened to it. I don’t know what Newsom’s intent was in having Kirk on, but Kirk rolled him. At best Newsom was unprepared and let Kirk get away with blatant lies and insinuations. Even when Newsom tried to correct Kirk, Kirk talked over him so the audience could not hear, much less process Newsom’s response. Kirk managed to find opportunities to insert clearly spoken and crafted short meme information bombs.
It is easy to see why so many people criticized Newsom having him on his pod cast. Newsom blew it.
No argument with you at all. The right is far more savvy about packaging their messages than the left or the middle. They need it. When people find out what they're really selling they hate it. Like right now.
GOP and think tanks have been working on their messaging for decades & along with MSM get it out and move it fast. No time for fact checking. Dems need to do the same. Newsom may have blown the Kirk interview, but his trolling trump was brilliant.
Noble thought, re., education. The reality is and has been that such a notion is not achievable in the real world. Not everyone reading has the same 'ears' or perception abilities Candace. Thorny problems not prone to knee jerk fixes.
Education is not a knee-jerk fix. It a lifelong endeavor, even if it does not transpire within the walls of a school or college.
Granted... But... "Not everyone reading has the same 'ears' or perception abilities Candace. Thorny problems not prone to knee jerk fixes."
The censorship we need is to keep people's addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, place of work, and any other personally-identifiable information from being published without that person's consent. And names should only be publishable if the accusations related to that name are verified. As it is, simply publishing someone's name in that list seems prosecutable as defamation. Most anything can go to court; the question is, who would win.
Ah, you mean a national Internet privacy law. California passed something modeled on European privacy laws around a decade ago. Unfortunately, I believe the last time the Federal law governing the internet got updated was in 1997.
By wanting to control the internet it sounds like the psyop already worked on your feeble brain and you've been brainwashed for a long time. Because only a leftist would want to control the flow of data for their own agenda.
What is your agenda?
Impossible to regulate something so entangled in free speech. What we need to do is educate people on how to handle all the information being thrown at them so they can manage it. There will always be bad actors, we just need to learn how to spot them and disarm them.
I am all in favor of such education; however, there is a portion of the population that lacks the curiosity and interest to absorb the education and even less in actually applying it. But we do have to work with what we are given.
hooray. And keep going. A friend of a friend just reported being doxed and getting hate mail because of a post that just QUOTED Charlie while deploring violence. This is an ordinary guy, not a public figure. Shadows the the Stasi network of informers.
You wont be able to hide forever, you will be exposed :)
John Lewis said to get in good trouble. The hacker who bombed that site listened well.
So grateful for your reporting AG- you, Jim Acosta, and a handful of other excellent indie media folks are my Walter Cronkites in this (scary) moment!
Isn't Enrique Tarrio an associate or former associate of Nick Fuentes, he of the Groyper Wars, who, as I understood things, was anti-Kirk?
Damn, these lunatics confuse the hell out of me. It's impossible to keep up with who's at war with who, etc. Bottom line is, isn't this still, at the end of the day, internecine warfare among their own tribe of lunatics? What is gained from building a website such as this, aside from diversion? Or maybe that's exactly the point.
IMO they're trying to control the national narrative, which involves controlling the narrative of their base. They've been working in this direction for decades. I want to believe that finally "we the people" aren't falling for it, but I've been wrong (many times) before.
Thanx Alison!
I agree. Allison’s reporting has been great from the start. She’s so honest and lets all of us know how she feels.
Every day I learn more scary stuff I have heretofore successfully avoided. At my age, retired, homebody, attended one HANDS OFF rally and decided I'm past my "best by" date, I sit here typing/reading/typing/reading. Allison is a miracle.
Thank you!!!
Thank you.
Press on! Thank you!
Too bad they didn't nuke the server while they were at it.