Belarus government blocking social media sites...

#78
#78
utvolpj said:
there's a difference between banning a newspaper and banning facebook. To be equal they would have to ban any type of internet access. It's not a basic human right to tweet and they aren't losing as much as everyone seems to be claiming. Am I old for suggesting email?
Click to expand...

So where does government get the right to ban social media? I agree internet access is not a natural right, but to me that isn't the question.
 
#79
#79
nbakerld said:
So where does government get the right to ban social media? I agree internet access is not a natural right, but to me that isn't the question.
Click to expand...

huge grey area. They can still exercise right to free speech on blogs and such. I can see where you're coming from though - countries just don't see free speech the same way we do.
 
#80
#80
BTW, social media is changing politics forever. Those with unique perspectives are more visible than ever. For 25 years Ron Paul argued to "audit the Fed" and made no progress pushing this agenda. His peers thought he was nuts. With the help of social media, Ron Paul's ideas have had wide exposure and in a few short years auditing the fed has become a mainstream idea with a lot of Republican support (and Democratic). I've noticed lately Bachmann's blitzing the display network with paid ads on youtube and VN.
 
#81
#81
KiffinKiller said:
huge grey area. They can still exercise right to free speech on blogs and such. I can see where you're coming from though - countries just don't see free speech the same way we do.
Click to expand...

Protection of free speech was specifically intended for the newspaper that government wants to silence. Banning facebook and banning the New York Times are the exact same thing. Sure NY Times' writers can still try to write books, but there's no question that it's a violation of free speech.

When the whole intent of Belarus's measure is to prevent people from freely speaking with one another, then it HAS TO BE A VIOLATION OF FREE SPEECH.
 
Last edited:
#82
#82
nbakerld said:
BTW, social media is changing politics forever. Those with unique perspectives are more visible than ever. For 25 years Ron Paul argued to "audit the Fed" and made no progress pushing this agenda. His peers thought he was nuts. With the help of social media, Ron Paul's ideas have had wide exposure and in a few short years auditing the fed has become a mainstream idea with a lot of Republican support (and Democratic). I've noticed lately Bachmann's blitzing the display network with paid ads on youtube and VN.
Click to expand...

I see your point - but it still doesn't keep them from the internet. You can easily access this information through other parts of the internet. fb, twitter, and the russian social network are just 3 small parts.
 
#83
#83
KiffinKiller said:
I see your point - but it still doesn't keep them from the internet. You can easily access this information through other parts of the internet. fb, twitter, and the russian social network are just 3 small parts.
Click to expand...

Then why ban them?
 
#84
#84
nbakerld said:
Then why ban them?
Click to expand...

Who knows and I still feel it's wrong but in this sense that really does fall into the same gray area as censorship. I still fee it's a basic right to have that info open, however I definitely see the concern where "all lanes to information should be opened" could easily translated to "access to all information is a right." Then ya, then it becomes the government's responsibility to pay your internet bill. Which I am not for at all.
 
#85
#85
OrangeYankee said:
Who knows and I still feel it's wrong but in this sense that really does fall into the same gray area as censorship.
Click to expand...

I know the reason. It's very simple. They are trying to prevent people from speaking with one another.

OrangeYankee said:
I still fee it's a basic right to have that info open, however I definitely see the concern where "all lanes to information should be opened" could easily translated to "access to all information is a right." Then ya, then it becomes the government's responsibility to pay your internet bill. Which I am not for at all.
Click to expand...

What?

This is like saying, "government shouldn't legalize pot, because then people will argue smoking smoking pot is a right and then government will have to provide pot to all." I don't know why this would be a concern, I am unaware of this kind of evolution of thought int the past.
 
#86
#86
nbakerld said:
I know the reason. It's very simple. They are trying to prevent people from speaking with one another.



What?

This is like saying, "government shouldn't legalize pot, because then people will argue smoking smoking pot is a right and then government will have to provide pot to all." I don't know why this would be a concern, I am unaware of this kind of evolution of thought int the past.
Click to expand...

the current healthcare debate perhaps?
 
#88
#88
nbakerld said:
I know the reason. It's very simple. They are trying to prevent people from speaking with one another.



What?

This is like saying, "government shouldn't legalize pot, because then people will argue smoking smoking pot is a right and then government will have to provide pot to all." I don't know why this would be a concern, I am unaware of this kind of evolution of thought int the past.
Click to expand...

And I wholly agree. I just noticed some of the responses did seem to reply as if they took what was being said as that everyone should have access to the internet at home without cost. And I was trying to clarify that was not what I was saying at all. Just that if you do have internet access... everything should be open for you.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top