Uh oh!

[jbeegoode]

Don't know how this is designed to affect foreign generated forums like this.

It seems to read as if it would keep people like Besos from doing things like deleting nudity wholesale. The article tells that the government will censor us. I don't know what is going on from this, just surely alarm from who knows who.

It would be unconstitutional as the article states and directly contradict law generated by the congress, passed by the congress with an executive order, which ain't legal. It IS bad policy no matter where this comes from Trump or some private entity manipulating opinion. I'm sure that the congress didn't pass protections without the private internet lobby's approval, or even private lobby's generating the bill.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/08/11/leaked-draft-trump-executive-order-censor-internet-denounced-dangerous?noredirect=on

Anybody think that they can cipher truth out of this?
Jbee

[nuduke]

This is so sad.  This is another example, like naturist clubs that don't allow single men as members, of a self appointed dictatorial bigotry that believes it is right and has the power to implement its wrong, wrong attitudes and force them on others.  The whole world seems to be moving in this direction gradually with the Trump administration being in the vanguard of the bigots and setting an example for the rest of the world to follow.
I have said this before - liberalism, the like of which arose after the 2nd WW and into the 60's has done so much good for the human condition.  But now it is being gradually erased by the screwed up moralists on some sort of mission and those who believe that pious, repressed, prurient middle class western mores should be forced on everyone.  Pray that this ridiculous proposal is rejected in the interests of democracy and by that remnant of the light of liberalism, freedom of speech, opinion and of mutual support and care in society that may perhaps remain from those enlightened days gone by.   


Are they going to censor the 'dark web' too? 
John

[eyesup]

Based on Rule #2, here for this forum and since there is nothing in that article that mentions or addresses nudity. I don’t see the relevance.

You might as well worry whether stock market fluctuations will have adverse effects on perceptions regarding nudity because a company that supports a moral social stance against nudity might, just might reap a benefit in a broad spectrum, robust market.

Also, I couldn’t find a single link to the leaked document. Maybe I missed it. In fact all the links I did find seem to link to the same sources. A sort of circular logic. And most try to ding you for a donation. A disinterested 3rd party or even an opposition group that supports your argument would at least have gone a long way to make me think it was objective.

There is an interesting line in the paragraph regarding an article from “The Economist”, that attempts to disprove claims about “political bias by digital platforms”, by saying that the bias in fact exists on search platforms. So the bias does exist, just not where it was claimed. What’s the old saying, “You’re preaching to the choir!”

I wasted a good bit of time on this article. It's an internet version of a robo-call. I Googled “Censor the Internet executive order” and so far haven’t found it. Maybe it’s over the rainbow.

Duane

[jbeegoode]

It is relevant to sites like this one. Naturism gets caught in the same net as porn. It is relevant to naturism and body freedom.

I'm thinking that there was a document, and to me, it sounds like something that Trump would give consideration of. He is after all the one who put the cables and communication industries in charge of the FCC and that has made a big problem. He is a proponent of unbridled  capitalism, free market capitalism, like his peers.

How far it got, or will get, is the matter and the unidentified part. It very well could be an exploitative attempt. There is too much of that going around. It is illegal, totalitarian fascist and wouldn't get very far. He is audacious enough to try something like that. But why was it leaked? Yea, don't know. I couldn't find much else on it either.
Jbee

[Greenbare Woods]

According to CNN, which obtained a copy of

CNN is anti-trump lies and fake news 24/7.   Don't believe ANYTHING you see or hear from CNN about President Trump. 

I'm sure CNN made this up like so much other crap they spew.

[jbeegoode]

Yea, it seems that when Trump drew the first blood, CNN had to defend themselves. They have gone too far at times, speaking too soon, but then they try to get it right. Then, we have FOX which has such bias that they aren't news, but just propaganda. I trust neither, they are tools of special interests and out "to sell papers."

This came from Common Dreams which reports that it was first leaked by Politico and was circulated to others, than CNN. There is enough support for internet freedom, why would this need to be added?  Why lie when the truth is strong enough? Still, we dunno.

I think that I'll look into Politico. I'm not very familiar with them. Common Dreams has often come up with hidden stories weeks before the major media, gets it, decides to touch it, or can't quash it any longer.

I think that it says something that has been already said by Trumps appointments about where he stands on free speech on the internet. How far this can go is the question? Congress needs to act and protect the Bill of Rights in common practice, instead of colluding with treason. What? Did they have their fingers crossed when they sore to protect and defend the Constitution, or just the one that was as it was when it was 1789?
Jbee

[John P]

Oh, good grief. Must we have this here?

[jbeegoode]

Jus' spreadin' DAH NEWS! 


I think that if naturism can be attacked due to corporate government control of media, then it is important to all naturism. This is about the question of is there a threat, or not. It is tough to ignore the political when attempting to cypher what is fake and what is real.
Jbee

[BlueTrain]

If I owned the media, I'd worry. But since I don't, I don't.