Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Metacomet who wrote (95112)	9/30/2012 6:03:36 PM
From: elmatador	Respond to of 220780

Both sides are learning. Social Networks were not contemplated by legal systems. Brazil side -judges have egos the size of a Boeing 747- is learning that there is a freedom out there that's beyond their power. Google side is learning that the free for all thing is going to step in some toes somewhere. It comes a time that these social networks and the legal systems adapted. I witnessed satellite TV. It was heralded (mid 80s) that freedom would be beamed into every country and autocrats would need to beware. Slowly it just adapted and autocrats (apart from Iran) where satellite systems are jammed) are there as they were before.

To: Metacomet who wrote (95112)	9/30/2012 9:03:12 PM
From: Box-By-The-Riviera™	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 220780

lol. not a chance. we are brasil already. have you been watching?

To: Metacomet who wrote (95112)	9/30/2012 9:36:50 PM
From: Joseph Silent	2 Recommendations Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 220780

There are, I think, problems that may go unobserved in this relentless technological drive forward with "information." There are implicit assumptions we make. I believe they are false. 1. The source of free speech is a "free" individual/channel. 2. When there are many individuals/channels, these individuals/channels arrive at their conclusions in a "free" and "independent" way. It's simpler to think in terms of individuals. In (1) we observe speech and may conclude a free individual was compelled to speak. We have little understanding of the path from input to output for that individual. We are generally unaware of influences, conditioning and motivation. Content and delivery can distract. In (2), we can mistake multiplicity for independence even if the variety is narrow. If it isn't, it is easier to assume independence. But the relationships between individuals can be complex, and the root of the tree that sources information becomes harder to locate. I suspect the control of information flow will get more and more sophisticated, even as the "independent" noise-makers think they have more and more independence and fancier devices to make a noise with. There is a lot at stake with control. At an extreme, it is hard to argue that thinking is free, because it is always conditioned. The thoughts come and go, and the stickier ones are more reluctant to go. Being bound to something (gold, family, ideals, ideas) already means the freedom in the mind is limited, though we habitually tend not to think that way for various reasons. Freedom is a complex thing. It's not easy to know what it is until one has it. When one finally has it, I suspect one is no longer alive. No more need for tech devices. Or space. Or noise. Or silence. It may all become one, like freedom and no-freedom. :)