Chavez looks to clamp down on Internet

astrofool

The thread could also be called night follows day for it's surprise factor, but it'll be interesting to see what his boards.ie comrades make of this. Would they be happy not being able to reply to this topic for example?

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62D05I20100314

Soldie

Ah, but it's for the greater good. Without strictly controlling the internet, Venezuelans would be exposed to dangerous ideas, and they'd see how miserable life is outside the communist utopia!

peasant

Well, you try write on here (boards) that minister X has a drinking problem or banker Y has fiddled their accounts and see how far you get

Cuddlesworth

I heard that minister X has a drinking problem or banker Y has fiddled their accounts.


Sits back and waits.

peasant

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

I heard that minister X has a drinking problem or banker Y has fiddled their accounts.


Sits back and waits.

post reported

Biggins

Newsflash * Chavez starts his own little China *

peasant

Read and read again:

Many opponents fear Chavez plans to emulate the government oversight of the Web used by allies Cuba, China and Iran, but the socialist leader has not given any sign that he is planning such a move.

and then please consider that propaganda isn't an exclusively socialist or communist invention

astrofool

As opposed to the quotes attributed directly to Chavez.

Citizen Chavez wrote:

"The Internet cannot be something open where anything is said and done. Every country has to apply its own rules and norms," Chavez said.

"We have to act. We are going to ask the attorney general for help, because this is a crime. I have information that this page periodically publishes stories calling for a coup d'etat. That cannot be permitted."

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

peasant

astrofool wrote: »

As opposed to the quotes attributed directly to Chavez.

See, I'm not trying to defend Chavez (a. because it isn't quite clear what exactly he wants to do and b. because I don't agree with blanket censorship either)

But this Reuters article is a badly written piece of propaganda.

If you read it again, the issues are:

Chavez has an issue with a website that publishes false information and tries to overthrow his (legitimate and elected) governement.

So he wants the attorney general to look into doing something about this website

Now the opposition fears that he may create some form of internet lockdown, Chavez has said no such thing.


What Reuters makes out of those issues is an article that leads you start a thread with the heading "Chavez looks to clamp down on internet" even though the article doesn't expressly say anything like that.
That's propaganda ...and it seems to have worked.

ei.sdraob

weren't we arguing recently that socialism needs authoritarian control to work

Chavez must be reading boards.ie...

thebman

Well thepiratebay.org is blocked by eircom so the Irish government aren't actively against censorship of the Internet.

Only difference it is a private company doing it here.

When exactly is the Irish government going to make its position of censorship of the Internet clear as it seems at the moment they are fine with it being left up to ISP's as long as they track everything we do.

I agree the article seems to suggest the thread title is inaccurate.

ei.sdraob

thebman wrote: »

Well thepiratebay.org is blocked by eircom so the Irish government aren't actively against censorship of the Internet.

Only difference it is a private company doing it here.

When exactly is the Irish government going to make its position of censorship of the Internet clear as it seems at the moment they are fine with it being left up to ISP's as long as they track everything we do.

I agree the article seems to suggest the thread title is inaccurate.

the EU are not too happy about blocking of any sort and the whole 3 strikes business in some countries

anyways if a private company wants to **** around with their customers they can, people can move to competition, noone in their right mind would ever touch eircom with a long stick anyways they are absolutely terrible, the worst of a bad bunch of isps we have in ireland

but yes the thread title is a bit inaccurate alright


edit: unfortunately people cant move out of socialist paradises easily

Laminations

Soldie wrote: »

Ah, but it's for the greater good. Without strictly controlling the internet, Venezuelans would be exposed to dangerous ideas, and they'd see how miserable life is outside the communist utopia!

Laminations wrote: »

So as a libertarian you are against file sharing and downloads of music?

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

How would you tackle this without any control of the internet?
Suggesting some control is not the same as 'clamping down' on the internet. I know you libertarians like to move your opponents argument to the extreme and then argue against that. The thread title is wholly inaccurate, and I'm not a fan of Chavez

dvpower

I've just read the article and I honestly can't see what the problem is.
Can the OP or anyone else tell me what facts, reported in that article, we should be concerned about?

Joey the lips

What has he actually said. The internet has reported stuff that is untrue and there should be regulation of this.

So what. This is said every day and if you believe that the internet is not kept an eye on then we are daft.

It is interesting to see though what his plans are.

Will he shut down the use of the internet in ven.

Or is it simply a hot air rant that the media has picked up on.


Then again... Is he right. granted if a website announced that bertie was dead and he was not and did not remove it for 2 days we would all be laughing

but say a website announced Jackie charlton killed in a car crash and had already announced Niall Quinn has massive heart attack when of course its all untrue we would be prity pee'd as well


Go on lets be honest... There is no story here yet just a lame attempt to pee the chavez camp off.

Exile 1798

A punchy headline and a few comments don't make an actual government policy.

If the Venezuelan government does what it is accused of possibly thinking about doing, then let's deal with that then.

Until then, let's simply note the media's fixation on Venezuela. Why does domestic news, in this case some comments by the President and some comments from an opponent rise to the level of international news?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship

According to Reporters Without Borders, Venezuela currently has no internet censorship, which sets it apart from most Western Countries which it rates as having Some Censorship, Australia which is considered to be Under Surveillance, and countries like China, Iran, Saudi which are considered heavily censored.

It should be noted that Turkey banned youtube in 2007 because of a derogatory video posted about Ataturk.

Exile 1798

astrofool wrote: »

The thread could also be called night follows day for it's surprise factor, but it'll be interesting to see what his boards.ie comrades make of this. Would they be happy not being able to reply to this topic for example?

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62D05I20100314

Reuters has an interesting headline, the opening poster makes no comment on the substance of the article, invites comrades to see what they make of it.

Another poster comes along with a sarcasm laden post about comrades and communist utopia. A few people thank them, presumably because of the brilliant wit of it.

Someone else says something about socialism needing authoritarianism to survive.

No one really takes heed of the actual article.

I agree it's not a surprising thread at all.

Sand

What has he actually said. The internet has reported stuff that is untrue and there should be regulation of this.

Actually, we dont know its untrue. But either way, it is a problem for forum providers (like Boards.ie) which open their forum to the public to air their views, but are held responsible for those views.

Nor is it self evident that there *should* be regulation of this anymore than there *should* be regulation of what people think.

peasant

Sand wrote: »

Nor is it self evident that there *should* be regulation of this anymore than there *should* be regulation of what people think.

Leaving old Hugo on the sideline for a minute ...

In Germany it is a criminal offence to publish anything that denies the holocaust.

Some may call that censorship, I call it a good idea.

jennyjest

Soldie wrote: »

Ah, but it's for the greater good. Without strictly controlling the internet, Venezuelans would be exposed to dangerous ideas, and they'd see how miserable life is outside the communist utopia!

Yeah they might realise how much money they could make growing and selling concaine in the 'Land of the Free'

Sand

@peasant

Leaving old Hugo on the sideline for a minute ...

In Germany it is a criminal offence to publish anything that denies the holocaust.

Some may call that censorship, I call it a good idea.

I dont - its an implicit admission that the view that holocaust did actually happen somehow needs to be subsidised or protected from critical analysis. Its perhaps the most beneficial argument for the holocaust deniers - "Look .... theyre so scared of the truth that theyll arrest me and lock me up if I speak it!"

The weight of evidence is so great, that anyone disputing the holocaust happened merely annoints themself a total moron. Give them enough rope and let them hang themselves I say.

trapsagenius

peasant wrote: »

Read and read again:



and then please consider that propaganda isn't an exclusively socialist or communist invention

We know that propaganda wasn't invented by commies.It was perfected by them though.

PomBear

trapsagenius wrote: »

We know that propaganda wasn't invented by commies.It was perfected by them though.

Hugo Chavez isn't a communist, he's a socialist

Pygmalion

"News" website reports that a senior government official has been killed, despite him being alive and healthy. Same website frequently calls for violent overthrow of the government.
President gets upset at this and says the site shouldn't be allowed to do this, without taking any action to stop them (so far) except warning them that it's a crime and that it will be looked into.

How the hell does this turn into "OH NO THE SOCIALISTS ARE KILLING THE INTERNET"?
As has been pointed out Venezuala has a better record in terms of censorship than most "free" countries, and still have taken no action at all against this site.
Surely if he was the Stalin of Latin America this would've been resolved a lot quicker, less openly and he wouldn't be waiting for the attorney general's opinion before taking action.

Not saying I'm a supporter of Chavez, but has anyone here actually read past the headline of this article?

peasant

Pygmalion wrote: »

"How the hell does this turn into "OH NO THE SOCIALISTS ARE KILLING THE INTERNET"?

because socialists are evil, mkay ?

Annasopra

absolutely no story here whatsoever apart from the twisted propaganda of Reuters

Joey the lips

trapsagenius wrote: »

We know that propaganda wasn't invented by commies.It was perfected by them though.

Invented by the nationalist socialist party( Hitler) and perfected by the CIA in my opinion. How else would a nation spend 10 years in vietnam fighting a ghost,

PomBear wrote: »

Hugo Chavez isn't a communist, he's a socialist

True and a good one by all accounts.

BlaasForRafa

Joey the lips wrote: »

Invented by the nationalist socialist party( Hitler) and perfected by the CIA in my opinion. How else would a nation spend 10 years in vietnam fighting a ghost,



True and a good one by all accounts.

Nah, the commies got there first man (and did it best imo, at least in an artistic sense). People like Mayakovsky and Rodchenko did some amazing art for the soviet state during the early 20's.