« Back to story "Warning sounded on web's future"

Story Comments

Posted by: Bkumm 1 year, 1 month ago

This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.

All Comments Share Story Report

  • 100%
    Bkumm1 year, 1 month ago

    This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

    In actuality, this is no more or less of a problem than it is in print, it's just easier and more to sift through.

    I look at it like this: if pagey or Neophile or James Marcus post something I'm more likely to believe that it is accurate than I would be if I_Love_Spam posts a submission. Secondly, if the submission is from Uncle Bob Loves Jesus.com I'm less likely to assume that it is accurate than I would be if it is from the Wall Street Journal.com. Lastly, one needs to maintain some sense of credulity. For instance, the story about Sarah Palin being the grandmother and not the mother of the last child in her family may or may not be true, but it stretches credulity. It should be investigated, but one can not say if it is true or not. Similarly, to suggest that Barack Obama hates the United States because his ex-pastor did, also stretches credulity.

    To not use politics as an example, or at least not the individuals involved, let's take the "Bush Doctrine". Now, it may be true that Charles Krauthammer coined the phrase and meant something different than what the phrase has come to mean in most circles. That does not negate the fact that he over-riding principle of the Bush Doctrine is preemptive war, as it is defined today. But, we have multiple opposing sources on the Internet telling us different things, so people can "prove" that the Bush Doctrine that Charles Gibson articulated is not the "right one". However, I liken that to the word "faggot" (which I'll bet gets busted by the autocensor). Once upon a time, and you can still find the definition on line, the word meant a loosely bundled bunch of sticks for a fire. Now, when someone uses the word, it is usually meant in a derogatory way towards homosexuals. But, a person could argue, using information from the Internet, that they didn't mean it that way. And you couldn't prove them wrong.

    So, that's another danger. Sorry for the rant, this is an important subject to me.

    (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 2) (recursion depth : 1) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
    Reply

    1 Reply

    loading loading ...
    • Neutral
      pagey1 year, 1 month ago

      This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

      Some good points Bkumm! I suppose I do the same, when a story is posted here I like to look at what the source is, I would like to think sources like CNN are legit, until proven otherwise

      (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 3) (recursion depth : 2) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
      Reply
      loading loading ...

    Post Reply

    You are not signed in to Propeller.com. Please sign in to post a reply.

    People Who Liked This Comment (1)

    People Who Didn't Like This Comment (0)

    No one voted this comment negatively.

    Submit a Story

    Advertisement

    Story Tags ?

    warning internet rumour trust www web online future

    Hey! If you Sign In, you can add tags to this story!

    Also Dropping This Article

    No one has dropped this story.

    Also Submitted By

    No one else has submitted this story.