Obama Talks Censorship

2

obama

Barack Obama is as corrupt as Hillary Clinton and one of the things he wants to see happen and which she does as well is to curate the flow of information. He wants government overseers to decide what information will be disseminated to the public.

The AFP reports that Obama on Thursday railed against America’s “wild, wild west” media environment for allowing conspiracy theorists a broad platform and destroying a common basis for debate.

He doesn’t mind lies by the left, only from the right.

Recalling past days when three television channels delivered fact-based news that most people trusted, Obama said democracy requires citizens to be able to sift through lies and distortions.

This is the same president that okayed government propaganda.

“We are going to have to rebuild within this wild-wild-west-of-information flow some sort of curating function that people agree to,” Obama said at an innovation conference in Pittsburgh.

Say goodbye to alternative media such as this and say goodbye to anything that strays from government censors. In this day of the Internet, nothing will get past his buddies at google.

“There has to be, I think, some sort of way in which we can sort through information that passes some basic truthiness tests and those that we have to discard, because they just don’t have any basis in anything that’s actually happening in the world,” Obama added.

The leftists will decide what is true and what isn’t.

This comes as Trump is under fire and  just a day after Google unveils its “Fact Checking” network.

Listen to the exchange [emphasis mine]

MR. GAWANDE: So how do we set up frameworks where we say, this is our time period where we’re going to collect facts, and at the end of the day we will accept the consensus of fact? How do we do that in our current political enterprise?

THE PRESIDENT: If I had the perfect answer to that, then I’d run for President. (Laughter.) Look, this takes us a little bit far afield, but I do think that it’s relevant to the scientific community, it’s relevant to our democracy, citizenship. We’re going to have to rebuild, within this Wild, Wild West of information flow, some sort of curating function that people agree to.

I use the analogy in politics — it used to be there were three television stations and Walter Cronkite is on there and not everybody agreed, and there were always outliers who thought that it was all propaganda, and we didn’t really land on the Moon, and Elvis is still alive, and so forth. (Laughter.) But, generally, that was in the papers that you bought at the supermarket right as you were checking out. And generally, people trusted a basic body of information.

It wasn’t always as democratic as it should have been. And Zoe is exactly right that — for example, on something like climate change, we’ve actually been doing some interesting initiatives where we’re essentially deputizing citizens with hand-held technologies to start recording information that then gets pooled — they’re becoming scientists without getting the PhD. And we can do that in a lot of other fields as well.

But there has to be, I think, some sort of way in which we can sort through information that passes some basic truthiness tests and those that we have to discard because they just don’t have any basis in anything that’s actually happening in the world.

And that’s hard to do, but I think it’s going to be necessary, it’s going to be possible. I think the answer is obviously not censorship, but it’s creating places where people can say, this is reliable and I’m still able to argue about — safely — about facts and what we should do about it while still — not just making stuff up.

  • Consider the analogy to the “anti-gun” forces. The “anti-gunners” aren’t genuinely against firearms; they merely want the government to have an absolute monopoly on them. Similarly, Obama and his henchmen aren’t really against the promulgation of lies or conspiracy theories; he merely wants the federal government to be the sole provider!

  • truthiness – for someone that claimed (and I use that word deliberately) to be an editor of the Harvard Law Review, I see nothing in his speech that would have merited graduating from that institution.