ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Non-USA & General Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 25th August 2018, 10:18 AM   #1
kellyb
Philosopher
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,265
Corbyn proposes a public alternative to facebook

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...media-overhaul

Quote:
Jeremy Corbyn has proposed establishing a British digital corporation that would commission online TV, offer easy access to archive material held by public sector institutions and operate a social networking arm that could play a role in direct democracy.

“The public realm doesn’t have to sit back and watch as a few mega tech corporations hoover up digital rights, assets and ultimately our money,” the Labour leader said.

He said the British media was failing and that multinational corporations dominated the internet.
Quote:
Plans for the new public sector organisation, which would sit alongside the BBC, have led to suggestions that Corbyn wants to create a nationalised answer to Facebook.
What would be the best arguments against this?
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2018, 10:26 AM   #2
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31į57'S 115į57'E
Posts: 13,469
Why would you argue against it? Choice is good.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2018, 11:16 AM   #3
Aber
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,384
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
What would be the best arguments against this?
Who pays for it?
Aber is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2018, 11:28 AM   #4
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,208
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
What would be the best arguments against this?
1) It's either unmoderated, or it's moderated by the government. Neither choice is good.

2) Who thinks the government can actually make a social media platform that people want to use?

3) Facebook invades privacy in creepy and unsettling ways. The government version is going to do the same.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2018, 12:16 PM   #5
ThatGuy11200
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 69
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
1) It's either unmoderated, or it's moderated by the government. Neither choice is good.

2) Who thinks the government can actually make a social media platform that people want to use?

3) Facebook invades privacy in creepy and unsettling ways. The government version is going to do the same.
1) If it's independantly run, then it wouldn't be the government moderating. But even if it was, how would it be worse than a politically motivated business doing the moderating?

2) Has any Western government tried to?

3) The Government and GCHQ most likely have access to that kind of information anyway. But if it's independant, there's no reason to believe they would be the ones collecting the data.
ThatGuy11200 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2018, 12:37 PM   #6
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 23,729
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
1) It's either unmoderated, or it's moderated by the government. Neither choice is good.
Either/or? I'm staggered, frankly, that you've reduced the options to those two.

The UK has many independent 'watchdogs' that oversee various national operations.
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2018, 12:52 PM   #7
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,208
Originally Posted by ThatGuy11200 View Post
1) If it's independantly run, then it wouldn't be the government moderating.
This might be a case of American vs. UK english. I'm not using "government" to mean what Americans would call the administration, ie, the cabinet and the ruling coalition in parliament. Maybe the appropriate term you might use is state, I don't know. But in the American sense of the word it would definitely be the government.

Quote:
2) Has any Western government tried to?
Google tried it, multiple times, and they failed. What makes you think the government is going to do any better?

Quote:
3) The Government and GCHQ most likely have access to that kind of information anyway. But if it's independant, there's no reason to believe they would be the ones collecting the data.
That's just precious.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2018, 04:03 PM   #8
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 30,162
Originally Posted by ThatGuy11200 View Post
1) If it's independantly run, then it wouldn't be the government moderating. But even if it was, how would it be worse than a politically motivated business doing the moderating?

2) Has any Western government tried to?

3) The Government and GCHQ most likely have access to that kind of information anyway. But if it's independant, there's no reason to believe they would be the ones collecting the data.
A private entity, setting its own policies independently of the government? We already have that. It's called Facebook. At that point, what problem is Corbyn actually solving?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2018, 04:58 PM   #9
kellyb
Philosopher
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,265
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
A private entity, setting its own policies independently of the government? We already have that. It's called Facebook.
Facebook is outsourcing censorship to the Atlantic Council and other, similar entities:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-f...-idUSKBN1KS22N

Quote:
But the lab and Atlantic Council bring geopolitical expertise and allow Facebook to distance itself from sensitive pronouncements
Quote:
Facebook employees said privately over the past several months that Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg wants to outsource many of the most sensitive political decisions, leaving fact-checking to media groups and geopolitics to think tanks. The more he succeeds, the fewer complications for Facebookís expansion, the smaller its payroll, and the more plausible its positioning as a neutral platform.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th August 2018, 01:48 AM   #10
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
Tagger
 
rjh01's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flying around in the sky
Posts: 24,070
The trouble is with setting up a competitor to Facebook is that it needs heaps of people to go use the new service. Until there is a critical mass people will not use it. If only a few people joined then there will be no one to read their posts so no point in writing it.

There are a few competitors to Facebook. Twitter is one. Instagram is another, but that is owned by Facebook! Snapchat is another.
__________________
This signature is for rent.
rjh01 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th August 2018, 05:35 AM   #11
surreptitious57
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 403
If it is a public sector organisation such as the BBC then it shall be taxpayer funded
Will those who do not use it be allowed to opt out like they can with the tv licence?
Will the content have to be politically balanced out to ensure that there is no bias?
What will one be able to see or say on this platform that they can not already do?
__________________
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious57 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th August 2018, 05:57 AM   #12
Filippo Lippi
Master Poster
 
Filippo Lippi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,892
"Menshn"
__________________
"You may not know anything about the issue but I bet you reckon something.
So why not tell us what you reckon? Let us enjoy the full majesty of your uninformed, ad hoc reckon..."
David Mitchell
Filippo Lippi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th August 2018, 06:02 AM   #13
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 14,196
If we accept "It's pointless" as valid counter-argument that would be mine.

And China's "Sesame Creed" government run social media has to be mentioned.

Originally Posted by rjh01 View Post
The trouble is with setting up a competitor to Facebook is that it needs heaps of people to go use the new service.
If Google couldn't make Google+ happen despite already being a service that massive amounts of people are already on in some other fashion (GMail, Youtube, etc) there is no chance that some government funded "Victory Gin" version is going to.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th August 2018, 02:15 AM   #14
Tolls
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,286
It would be a government IT project.
That should be enough to make anyone pause and think again.
Tolls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th August 2018, 02:31 AM   #15
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 83,977
Social media does not only mean Facebook and from reading the article it doesn't seem to be that Corbyn is saying we should be looking to duplicate Facebook so no idea where anyone has got that idea from.

Some of his ideas I think have huge merit - the idea of getting government info all online and accessible to all UK citizens free of charge (at point of use) seems a really good idea that I would strongly support. It's our information in the first place and having it digitally accessible means more people than ever before would have access to all this information.

UK folk may recall the government stepped in and forced the BBC to drastically reduce its online offering as a direct result of pressure from the large media conglomerates, I still think that was a bad idea and it really wouldn't cost much (in relative terms) to undo that stupid decision and that would be a good comparatively simple way to get these ideas moving.

All in all some really good forward looking ideas.

(PS - the government already moderates your social media - it's called laws!)
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th August 2018, 04:34 AM   #16
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,208
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Some of his ideas I think have huge merit - the idea of getting government info all online and accessible to all UK citizens free of charge (at point of use) seems a really good idea that I would strongly support. It's our information in the first place and having it digitally accessible means more people than ever before would have access to all this information.
That isnít social media, thatís just having a good website. Which this isnít likely to do either as a separate entity.

Quote:
(PS - the government already moderates your social media - it's called laws!)
Which are both terrible and terribly enforced.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th August 2018, 04:45 AM   #17
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 83,977
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
That isnít social media, thatís just having a good website. Which this isnít likely to do either as a separate entity.
Well spotted. Especially as I didn't say that was social media....


Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Which are both terrible and terribly enforced.
It's your government of the people, by the people, for the people so if you don't like something get working on changing it.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th August 2018, 06:57 AM   #18
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,208
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Well spotted. Especially as I didn't say that was social media....

Corbyn wants the government to get into the social media business. That's a stupid idea. Saying that it won't be a facebook equivalent but some other social media model doesn't change that.

Quote:
It's your government of the people, by the people, for the people so if you don't like something get working on changing it.
No, it's not mine. I'm not a citizen of the UK, there's nothing I can do to change the fecklessness of your government.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th August 2018, 07:06 AM   #19
Cavemonster
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,990
Recently listened to an interesting NPR program (Radiolab I think?) about Facebook moderation. It underlined how incredibly tricky it can be.

I think that if a social media platform were run by the state, then all moderation issues would be even worse. Things that normally get decided by courts, like "What constitutes pornography" would have to be decided by algorithm, or by low paid employees millions of times a day. And any call they make would be a sort of legal precedent to acceptable and unacceptable speech.

If social media is unmoderated, it quickly gets drowned in spam, scams, porn and hate speech.
__________________
The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon.
-G.K. CHESTERTON
Cavemonster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th August 2018, 07:06 AM   #20
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 83,977
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Corbyn wants the government to get into the social media business. That's a stupid idea. Saying that it won't be a facebook equivalent but some other social media model doesn't change that.
Now we've got past your mistake about my post we can move on in the discussion.

Why do you think a government shouldn't use the means of communication we have these days to communicate with one another? Do you think the government should not use telephones, the printing press and so on?

Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
No, it's not mine. I'm not a citizen of the UK, there's nothing I can do to change the fecklessness of your government.
How strange yet again you are posting about something I haven't posted. To remind you the comment you replied to was "(PS - the government already moderates your social media - it's called laws!)" (Hilighting added)

I made it most clear that I was talking about your government and my government and all of our governments... You really should try to address what people actually post, it makes for much more productive discussions.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th August 2018, 07:15 AM   #21
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 83,977
Originally Posted by Cavemonster View Post
Recently listened to an interesting NPR program (Radiolab I think?) about Facebook moderation. It underlined how incredibly tricky it can be.

I think that if a social media platform were run by the state, then all moderation issues would be even worse. Things that normally get decided by courts, like "What constitutes pornography" would have to be decided by algorithm, or by low paid employees millions of times a day. And any call they make would be a sort of legal precedent to acceptable and unacceptable speech.

If social media is unmoderated, it quickly gets drowned in spam, scams, porn and hate speech.

Surely it would depend on what the actual social media platform was, what it was meant to do and so on? People seem to be caught up in the idea that it is being suggested the government should create and run "FaceGOV".

The world is changing, how people communicate has and is changing, for effective government we have to have good communication between us, government needs to be able to communicate effectively with as many people as it can to be legitimate.

To say the government can't communicate in an appropriate and effective way seems rather a strange view to hold, it is good to see politicians for once trying to work out how to communicate most effectively and in a way that engages us all in our governance.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th August 2018, 07:34 AM   #22
SuburbanTurkey
Muse
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Boston, USA
Posts: 735
Seems like something that would be better suited for a user owned cooperative rather than a .gov operation. But then again, the same could be said for many things and yet these kinds of schemes are relatively rare.
__________________
Gobble gobble
SuburbanTurkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th August 2018, 07:38 AM   #23
Cavemonster
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,990
Originally Posted by Darat View Post

To say the government can't communicate in an appropriate and effective way seems rather a strange view to hold, it is good to see politicians for once trying to work out how to communicate most effectively and in a way that engages us all in our governance.
If it's a one way platform for the government to communicate TO the people, then it isn't social media.

The issues I pointed out would persist if it resembled ANY social media platform that we can look at.
__________________
The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon.
-G.K. CHESTERTON

Last edited by Cavemonster; 28th August 2018 at 07:40 AM.
Cavemonster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th August 2018, 07:42 AM   #24
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,208
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Why do you think a government shouldn't use the means of communication we have these days to communicate with one another? Do you think the government should not use telephones, the printing press and so on?
That's not what Corbyn is proposing. He isn't proposing to use social media, he's proposing to have government run a social media company. The equivalent isn't using a telephone, but running a telephone company.

Quote:
You really should try to address what people actually post, it makes for much more productive discussions.
That's ironic, given that I said nothing about government not using social media.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th August 2018, 07:49 AM   #25
Camillus
Critical Thinker
 
Camillus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 453
I haven't read the proposals in detail but the social media element seems to be more akin to polling or petition sites than to Facebook. Now I don't think that's a good idea because, while direct democracy has some appeal, it is also a tar pit ripe for trolls, gamers and single agenda fanatics and I can't see any way it could be run without turning into either an irrelevance or a train wreck.
__________________
Live long and prosper.

Last edited by Camillus; 28th August 2018 at 07:50 AM. Reason: Spleling
Camillus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th August 2018, 01:29 AM   #26
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 16,016
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Why do you think a government shouldn't...

Whatever the end of this question is, the answer is nearly always because corporations have spent the last 40 years investing in media that causes people to distrust to extreme their own, (elected by them, made of of people drawn from their numbers, the only entity that's willing to assist the low waged, low status individuals,) government.


It's worked a charm.
__________________
Up the River!
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th August 2018, 01:46 AM   #27
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
Tagger
 
rjh01's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flying around in the sky
Posts: 24,070
Originally Posted by Camillus View Post
I haven't read the proposals in detail but the social media element seems to be more akin to polling or petition sites than to Facebook. Now I don't think that's a good idea because, while direct democracy has some appeal, it is also a tar pit ripe for trolls, gamers and single agenda fanatics and I can't see any way it could be run without turning into either an irrelevance or a train wreck.
Trolls could be controlled if only voters could register. Then your identity would be known, maybe by everyone. Then a person would only be allowed to post at no more than a certain rate.
__________________
This signature is for rent.
rjh01 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th August 2018, 06:51 AM   #28
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,208
Originally Posted by rjh01 View Post
Trolls could be controlled if only voters could register. Then your identity would be known, maybe by everyone. Then a person would only be allowed to post at no more than a certain rate.
That sounds like a platform nobody will be interested in using.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th August 2018, 02:07 PM   #29
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
Tagger
 
rjh01's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flying around in the sky
Posts: 24,070
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
That sounds like a platform nobody will be interested in using.
Nobody would be interested in a platform where intelligent conversations can be made, that are listened to by your local MPs. And you can vote for what policies the government should implement.
__________________
This signature is for rent.
rjh01 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th August 2018, 02:21 PM   #30
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,511
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Corbyn wants the government to get into the social media business. That's a stupid idea.
Yeah, stoopid Poms!

Governments are terrible at running free, public-access electronic platforms.

I mean, look at the BBC and the utter crud they put on TV screens. They've never made a single TV program worth turning on, and their documentaries are even worse, with that dickweed Attenborough and his pseudo-scientific rot.

BBC Radio? Awful - undoubtedly the worst radio stations on the planet and they never contribute anything to society. Just think, with old Auntie Beeb, the world would never have had to put up with the appalling Douglas Adams.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th August 2018, 03:00 PM   #31
kellyb
Philosopher
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,265
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post

Governments are terrible at running free, public-access electronic platforms.
They might not even sell your data to advertisers! How would you ever know what you wanted to buy?
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th August 2018, 03:31 PM   #32
applecorped
Rotten to the Core
 
applecorped's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 18,492
Money, flush, repeat
__________________
All You Need Is Love.
applecorped is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2018, 07:08 AM   #33
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,208
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Yeah, stoopid Poms!

Governments are terrible at running free, public-access electronic platforms.

I mean, look at the BBC and the utter crud they put on TV screens. They've never made a single TV program worth turning on, and their documentaries are even worse, with that dickweed Attenborough and his pseudo-scientific rot.

BBC Radio? Awful - undoubtedly the worst radio stations on the planet and they never contribute anything to society. Just think, with old Auntie Beeb, the world would never have had to put up with the appalling Douglas Adams.
The BBC is not a social media platform. It doesn't depend upon network effects to be successful. It costs a lot of taxpayer money to pull off. It's biased and subject to scandal. Using the BBC as a model for this hypothetical social media platform isn't persuasive.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2018, 07:09 AM   #34
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,208
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
They might not even sell your data to advertisers!
Quite so. They might simply force you to pay for it regardless of your interest or willingness.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2018, 02:02 PM   #35
kellyb
Philosopher
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,265
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Quite so. They might simply force you to pay for it regardless of your interest or willingness.
Fine by me!
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2018, 02:35 PM   #36
applecorped
Rotten to the Core
 
applecorped's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 18,492
Sad
__________________
All You Need Is Love.
applecorped is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2018, 03:08 PM   #37
kellyb
Philosopher
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,265
Originally Posted by applecorped View Post
Sad
Subtract from excessive military and attack all the wastefraudandabuse therein, and divert funds to things which improve people's well being.

Also, we can afford it.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2018, 04:54 PM   #38
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 30,162
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Subtract from excessive military and attack all the wastefraudandabuse therein, and divert funds to things which improve people's well being. [/url]
First, US military spending does improve people's wellbeing.

Second, we already spend money on additional other stuff which improves people's well being.

Third, every government program has waste, fraud, and abuse proportional to its spending.

Fourth, Social Security and Medicare already account for almost 50% of the budget. Military spending accounts for about 15% of the budget.

Fifth, you'd get more bang for your buck attacking waste, fraud, and abuse in those programs than in the military.

Sixth, diverting even the 'excess' military spending to those programs wouldn't make much difference.

Seventh, if you're talking about the smaller programs that, like military spending are dwarfed by the two biggest, you could fund them better from the savings you got attacking waste, fraud, and abuse, in Social Security and Medicare. Those two programs have more savings to be realized that way.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2018, 05:03 PM   #39
kellyb
Philosopher
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,265
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
First, US military spending does improve people's wellbeing.
It improves the well being of the people manufacturing weapons, for sure.

A lot of it truly is a matter of waste, fraud and abuse.

Quote:
Second, we already spend money on additional other stuff which improves people's well being.
Not nearly enough.

Quote:
Third, every government program has waste, fraud, and abuse proportional to its spending.
Where in the world are you getting "proportional" from?

How much WF&A is there in social security, really? I need a link.

Quote:
Fourth, Social Security and Medicare already account for almost 50% of the budget. Military spending accounts for about 15% of the budget.

Fifth, you'd get more bang for your buck attacking waste, fraud, and abuse in those programs than in the military.
For medicare, we just need to convert the whole system to single payer. Social security just needs to be expanded.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2018, 06:09 PM   #40
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,208
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Subtract from excessive military and attack all the wastefraudandabuse therein, and divert funds to things which improve people's well being.
That is never, ever how it actually works.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Non-USA & General Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:18 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.