The Shrine

...or has the internet gotten too powerful that no government can control/regulate/censor it?

When the news first broke that the Iranian presidential election vote was shrouded in controversy, almost immediately the conservative government right slapped the clamps on media distribution outlets and internet outlets throughout the country, even taking down the website of President Ahmadinejad opponent Moussavi. This political censorship has now created a backlash of civil unrest and dissent in the country because the minority youth movement felt that they their voices could not be heard.

Enter Youtube.

Like any American teen who posts videos of themselves, Iranian youth have now started to post videos of the political protests that the Iranian government cannot stop. Once CNN and MSNBC announced that they could no longer provide photos or film from the streets, videos from the cities were uploaded to Youtube making big media look like they had just been slapped by a newspaper.

The internet has now become a weapon against political and social corruption. I'll make an allusion to 1984 but, this is different than a Big Brother state as these videos are not coming from a man behind a desk with 30 cameras on street corners, but people who are actually witnessing these events with cellphone cameras. This is a voluntary orwellian state right now. The people in Iran want to make sure everyone knows what it is like to live in Iran and Youtube is the closest thing they have to fully and freely expressing their voice. This event will change the way Youtube, the internet, and political and social issues are dealt with.

When the news outlets start going to Youtube to find content, this shows a huge shift in the way news is delivered. Youtube is everywhere where as a news crew can only be in one place one time. Vantage Point was not a great movie but you can now see what the director was probably hinting at.

The internet is now a judicial system where people can judge the content on Youtube.

What effect will this have on other governments? How will this change the way people watch the news? How has this changed Youtube?

Well isn't the reverse also true?

I, for one, love LOVE the information age that we live in. Fuck the media in all its traditional forms, as far as i am concerned. It is used as a medium of influence all too often (al jazeera). It doesnt bother me at all that newspapers and networks are getting hit by the blog and internet surge.

I predict that there will be a newspaper bailout, though, which will really piss me off. Get with the times and change your model or die out. The written word is very influential, and people sometimes dont realize that they are being swayed. Enter the internet and the millions of different views you can find to make your own choice.

How long before the ISPs in Iran are ordered to put Youtube on the banned list?

Flip wrote:I predict that there will be a newspaper bailout, though, which will really piss me off. Get with the times and change your model or die out. The written word is very influential, and people sometimes dont realize that they are being swayed. Enter the internet and the millions of different views you can find to make your own choice.

Not even the govt would want to bailout the newspapers. They realize as much as the next guy that it's a failing model. At least cars and banks are still required.

Zeus wrote:How long before the ISPs in Iran are ordered to put Youtube on the banned list?

I thought this was one of the first things Iran did after the election? They blocked Social Networking websites, I would assume Youtube was on the list (Youtube is both a Streaming Media and a Social Networking site).

Tessian wrote:

Zeus wrote:How long before the ISPs in Iran are ordered to put Youtube on the banned list?

I thought this was one of the first things Iran did after the election? They blocked Social Networking websites, I would assume Youtube was on the list (Youtube is both a Streaming Media and a Social Networking site).

I don't know how uploading to Youtube works, but maybe they can go through other sites?

I guess I'm the only one here who's worried about losing professional journalists? The problem with relying solely on "social media" is basic fact checking. Social media is also just a raw data stream; one of the values of professional journalists is their ability to synthesize the raw material and provide more perspective through analysis.

Kupek wrote:I guess I'm the only one here who's worried about losing professional journalists? The problem with relying solely on "social media" is basic fact checking. Social media is also just a raw data stream; one of the values of professional journalists is their ability to synthesize the raw material and provide more perspective through analysis.

I'm with you shirtless joe

Kupek wrote:I guess I'm the only one here who's worried about losing professional journalists? The problem with relying solely on "social media" is basic fact checking. Social media is also just a raw data stream; one of the values of professional journalists is their ability to synthesize the raw material and provide more perspective through analysis.

Maybe the reason you're the only one worried about that is because you're the one only one who still has faith in professional journalists? It's not like journalists have endeared themselves to much of the public over the last few years with their bias, suspect fact checking, and far-too-narrow view of subjects to suit the ADHD-age. There's little integrity anymore in the traditional forms of news media in the eyes of many.

The speed of the information is more important right now than the accuracy, but they are well aware of the need to control the accuracy. CNN has only now caught on to the fact that just because you don't have journalists in the country to cover it, it doesn't mean that the story doesn't exist. Of course, they are now several days late to the party, which means everybody is pissed at them for pretending that the story cannot be covered for so long.

In a sense, anybody can be a journalist if they're careful about the accuracy.

Honduras's government was just overthrown by the military. So far there hasn't been any word as to who is behind it.

It's a military coup, so...

Good Seek Hunting wrote:Honduras's government was just overthrown by the military. So far there hasn't been any word as to who is behind it.

Fuck. One country fights for a true democracy, and another get taken over by a military coup? Is democracy actually winning or what? It's just a vicious fucking cycle.

Democracy is too hard--especially since if you get enough guns and people together, you can easily overthrow a third-world country. It's not that democracy doesn't work--it just isn't a convenient alternative in the world stage.

Which is why I believe that giving guns to the people is key to KEEPING a democracy. Hell, we're living proof. King George had plenty of uprisings, but America was the only one he lost. And we did it because we had a bunch of farmers with guns.

People bitching about how guns can increase violence should try living in Honduras right now. Now the military is the keeper of the weapons, and those people don't have a fighting chance. Unlike Iran, these militants don't care about peaceful protests. Iran's leaders barely care, but fortunately, they have powerful religious leaders that do care.

Though most of the British Empire DID in fact fall to peaceful demonstration. Most of the Americans of the revolutionary period were terrible examples of human beings; torturing and killing many innocents. Let's not forget armed uprisings of the Germans, Russians, and French against their Monarchies/governments and the terrible results which include the Reign of Terror and Napoleon's military conquest of Europe, the Nazi regime, and the USSR.

(Finally fixed a misspelling in the title. That's been bothering me for weeks.)

HAHA it was bothering me too, but I didnt wanna seem nitpicky

Good Seek Hunting wrote:Though most of the British Empire DID in fact fall to peaceful demonstration. Most of the Americans of the revolutionary period were terrible examples of human beings; torturing and killing many innocents. Let's not forget armed uprisings of the Germans, Russians, and French against their Monarchies/governments and the terrible results which include the Reign of Terror and Napoleon's military conquest of Europe, the Nazi regime, and the USSR.

You're talking about government armies, not militia, who would be fighting AGAINST the government armies. Armed uprisings with a military force is the same as a government army. It's a minority of people trying to subvert a majority of the population.

Not to mention that the Nazi party started out as a political force that gained its own military force over time. And the Reign of Terror was caused by a dictatorship, not countrymen fighting against their government. (Though it came about right after overthrowing the monarchy.) Sometimes revolutions, armed or unarmed, don't go to the form of government you want. Just look at Cuba.

Anyway, my point is that marching a bunch of unarmed civilians in front of a military that doesn't give a shit is going to result in a bunch of dead civilians. At least when they are armed, their strength in numbers now outweighs their matched weaponry.

It's simple mathematics.

Oops, never mind. Only the King of Pop's death can undermine the ENTIRE media.

So, where is Iran again? What happened to that plane that crashed? Oh wait there were two? What is going on? OH FUCK MICHAEL JACKSON HAD A GAS PASSER WITH HIM ALL THE TIME??

Bahhhhh, Bahhhhhhhh....