http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/53363
White House Seeks to Capture and Archive Citizens’ Comments on its Facebook, YouTube, MySpace Sites
What about Twitter? Everyone knows that all terrorists use Twitter.
And your commentary to go with the link is … ?
Not sure what the issue is? They are public comments posted to a public site. Whether they are archived for eternity or not seems rather moot after they were posted out there for the world to see. What would the harm be in writing down something that was voluntarily written in public for all to see.
White House Seeks to Capture and Archive Citizens’ Comments on ITS[SIZE=“7”][/SIZE] Facebook, YouTube, MySpace Sites
Perhaps you missed that one word, which makes all the difference.
Moving thread from IMHO to MPSIMS.
Hmmm; from “About Us” :
In other words, what we have here is a right wing propaganda site trying to whip up paranoia over the harmless archiving of information publicly posted to the White House’s own sites.
From a historical perspective, I actually think this is awesome.
So much of today’s media is temporary - imagine being able to read these comments 50 or 100 years later?
And you know, if anybody expects privacy on a publically viewed site, that makes them a moron of the highest order.
I agree. I think that whenever possible public information should be preserved.
Have you guys seen the comments on public news sites? Almost all of them are idiotic.
In 50 or 100, our decendants will be so embarrassed to see what morons we all were.
(Expect Doper progeny, of course.)
It does?
If you’re not assuming that everything you put on the Internet will be archived, then you’re doing it wrong.
Psst! Don’t tell anyone this, but I agree.
If the government was going to save everything people posted to each others social networking pages, that could be considered intrusive, since those comments are often only intended for one’s friends. But if its only comments on the government’s own pages, it’s not, since those are are intended as public comments.
I mean, if someone posts something to my page, I have the right to read and archive it, don’t I?
But from a historical perspective that doesn’t matter; if some future historian wants to know what people were really thinking, the idiots count too.
Agree - imagine if we had a Twitter feed of your average Southerner prior to the Civil War? Or a comments section of people in favor of sending the Japanese to the internment camps with counterarguments from those opposed? I’m sure there were just as many idiots on both sides who would have been shouting from the rooftops, as well as reasoned people who would have been trying to wade through the noise and create signal.
What about a contemporary anti-Vietnam war FB page?
It would be fascinating to read all that now, even though with the hindsight of history we know how misguided some of the actions/opinions were. And the really cool thing about it is that all the social media happens in real time, so that it’s not like you’re getting a memoir later on, even one of a common man, which is distorted by the history between the time the event happened and the time it was written down.
Again, how is this any different than anything else?
(such as this very board?)
Most news sources are liberally biased. Academic Stuff
No news source is unbiased.
I’m not going to slog through that whole thing, but it’s unbelievable from the start. We have a right wing Congress, so it conveniently defines “liberal” as “anything to the left of the middle of Congress”. Seriously :
Republican-sitting-as-a-Democrat Lieberman is what they call liberal? :rolleyes:
It also goes on about the alleged liberalism of journalists, which is simply irrelevant. Journalists are employees; they will report what they are ordered to report, with the political slant they are ordered to report, or they’ll be fired.
And worst of all, it ignores the little problem that the “liberal” view of the world happens to be far closer to reality. So to the extent a media outlet is correct, it IS going to have a “liberal bias”, because the conservatives in this country have simply collectively gone off the deep end. There were no WMDs in Iraq, UHC really is cheaper and better than the free market, global warming is a scientific fact and so on. Is it “bias” to be correct?