Fiona givens leaves maxwell institute

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Unfortunately, social media platforms have not been brought under the aegis of 1A. 

This is a feature. Not a bug.

 

Quote

We should consider all those platforms as part of the public street or commons, just as we do for radio and television (because they use the public airwaves). 

I disagree. These platforms are created, developed, and maintained by private companies.

They may have the appearance of a public forum because they are so widely used but they are, in fact, privately owned services.

 

Quote

As it stands now, those social media platforms can censor whatever they please.

Correct. Just like this website does.

 

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bd/canon?lang=eng

If you read the link above, you will see that "canon" by nature is not infallible, and "True prophets and apostles will continue to receive new revelation, and from time to time the legal authorities of the Church will see fit to formally add to the collection of scripture."

Also see items 4 and 5 here: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/scripture-study-the-power-of-the-word-teacher-manual/lesson-1?lang=eng

"The process [canonization] is illustrated by the action taken in the April 1976 general conference under the direction of President N. Eldon Tanner, in which two revelations were added to the Pearl of Great Price."

yes and???? My point was adding to scripture is done by common consent and is binding.  So why should binding polices be any different?

[CV75]

32 minutes ago, Teancum said:

yes and???? My point was adding to scripture is done by common consent and is binding.  So why should binding polices be any different?

Common consent is required in both the approval of canon (which has a narrower, finer definition from "scripture") and general Church administration. The former is specific and incident-based, and the latter is more general through the sustaining of Church officers to do their job. The distinction of course is determined by those we sustain to do their jobs.

So your point should be that both canon and policy, and the collective commitment to sustain and be bound by them, are established through the principle of common consent, expressed in two different ways.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Amulek said:

This is a feature. Not a bug.

I disagree. These platforms are created, developed, and maintained by private companies.

They may have the appearance of a public forum because they are so widely used but they are, in fact, privately owned services.

Correct. Just like this website does.

You miss the fact that they are monopolies which can actively control the dissemination of information.  Private companies also operate radio and television companies, but we do not allow them to engage in massive thought-control, as they are used in China, North Korea, Russia, and various Islamic countries.  That is what 1A is all about, and it does not apply under totalitarian regimes.  Here in America, privately owned services do not have the right to effectively engage in censorship of the public airwaves, and should not be allowed to do so in the remainder of the electromagnetic spectrum or digital systems -- which they did not invent in any case.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

yes and???? My point was adding to scripture is done by common consent and is binding.  So why should binding polices be any different?

We do have a hierarchical church organization, which is true of some other churches, and common consent isn't necessarily raw democracy.  In Iran or in Saudia (Saudi Arabia), for example, the binding policy is defined by the powerful people in those polities -- religious leaders who define what the Holy Qur'an means, along with other statements by Muhammad -- and those interpretations define what can be said or done in those societies, and police power is used to enforce those views.  For example, in Saudia, women are under severe restrictions and even jailed for not adhering to strict rules which we would never permit in American society.  Moreover, even converting from Islam to another religion is punishable by death.  There is a difference in our ways of enforcing policies, and in the ways employed in other societies, even though some on this board lose sight of those differences.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, Chum said:

I don't know what this means. The 1A only restricts governments. It can not restrict something that is not a government.

Public airwaves applies to a scarce resource (freq) that is solely meted out by the government. None of that applies to an internet presence.

If you run a blog and I post a comment you find incendiary or harmful, you are free to perform moderation and flag or delete my comment. If I do it repeatedly, you are free to delete my user account. A government may not abridge your right to do that without violating the 1A.

Similarly, the 1A says Gov can not stop me from launching my own blog that I can pack with as many incendiary comments as I like. It also says that Gov can not stop my web host from hosting or not hosting that blog.

In short, 1A says that Gov may not interfere with saying what we like. It can not force others to say what we like, however.

The U.S. govt invented the internet, and it governs monopolistic use of it the same way it governs the use of any other part of the electromagnetic spectrum  --- just as it governs or regulates radio and television broadcasting over the public airwaves, just as it regulates use of all digital systems of communication (FCC) and transportation (FAA), etc.  The Constitution insures that this be done fairly, even though private companies operate in many of those systems.  Ultimately, the people at large own those airwaves and digital systems, even though powerful and rich companies operate within them.  Private companies must not be allowed to censor public opinion the way they do now.  Just because Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post, does not mean that he should be able to control what is published in that newspaper (the second most influential newspaper in the country).  A free press is at stake when his personal political views are employed to control and censor information.  In Russia, of course, where there is no 1A, Vlad Putin does control what is published in the newspapers and on TV.  Is that O.K.?

[strappinglad]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The U.S. govt invented the internet

Hey , I thought that was Al Gore !!!

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, strappinglad said:

Hey , I thought that was Al Gore !!!

Actually that is an urban legend:

Quote

Despite the multitudinous derisive references to the supposed quote that continue to be proffered even today, former U.S. vice president Al Gore never claimed that he “invented” the Internet, nor did he say anything that could reasonably be interpreted that way. The legend arose from critics and pundits who plucked a relatively credible statement Gore made during the course of an interview, altered its wording, and stripped it of context to make it seem a ridiculously self-serving falsehood.

The “Al Gore claimed he ‘invented’ the Internet” put-downs were misleading distortions that originated with a campaign interview conducted by Wolf Blitzer on CNN’s Late Edition program on 9 March 1999. (Gore, then the sitting Vice President, was seeking the 2000 Democratic presidential nomination.)

When asked to describe what distinguished him from his challenger for the Democratic presidential nomination, Senator Bill Bradley of New Jersey, Gore replied (in part): “During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country’s economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.”

In context, Gore’s response (which employed the word “created,” not “invented”) was clear in meaning: the vice president was not claiming that he “invented” the Internet in the sense of having thought up, designed, or implemented it, but rather asserting that he was one of the visionaries responsible for helping to bring it into being by fostering its development in an economic and legislative sense.  https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/internet-of-lies/

 

Edited May 11, 2021 by Robert F. Smith

[Scott Lloyd]

49 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Actually that is an urban legend:

 

So the Internet already existed. Al Gore was just the first one to use it. Or something. 

[Stargazer]

22 hours ago, Teancum said:

I am skeptical still.  

What happened to "Believe all women"?

[Stargazer]

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

Your commentary here reminds me of the Sovereign Citizen-type folks...

I wasn't so sure the comparison was apt, until he responded with:

"So can they add binding scripture to the Canon without a sustaining vote?"

That sounds precisely like that lady in the video. 

 

[Teancum]

15 hours ago, CV75 said:

Common consent is required in both the approval of canon (which has a narrower, finer definition from "scripture") and general Church administration. The former is specific and incident-based, and the latter is more general through the sustaining of Church officers to do their job. The distinction of course is determined by those we sustain to do their jobs.

So your point should be that both canon and policy, and the collective commitment to sustain and be bound by them, are established through the principle of common consent, expressed in two different ways.

Is this your opinion or do you have something with authority to back it up?

[Chum]

14 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The U.S. govt invented the internet

Where did you get this? The early hardware came out of Xerox PARC labs and TCP/IP originated at Stanford and UCLA. That core tech was deployed before the DoD showed up (to trade cash and resources for space on the network).

14 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The U.S. govt .. governs monopolistic use of it the same way it governs the use of any other part of the electromagnetic spectrum just as it governs or regulates radio and television broadcasting over the public airwaves, just as it regulates use of all digital systems of communication (FCC) and transportation (FAA), etc

Are you mashing these confusing things together because you heard someone else do it?  If so, they are not serving you well.

I've already explained that public airwaves are a scarce, public resource that is meted out by US Gov. This isn't equivalent to private wireline networks. Wireline network transport frequencies are established by the IEEE, a professional engineering association, not the US Gov.

edit: Maybe this will help explain the difference. Public airwaves are a scarce resource because there is only one. Gov mandates who can broadcast, in order to prevent signals from overlapping each other.

A wire can carry the same frequencies that are broadcast over the air. However we can add more wires right next to it - each carrying their own frequency bands. We can have many, many wires. oNe BAziLLioN wIrES!  Wireline offers such a massive bounty of frequencies that wireline bandwith isn't a scarce resource. Everyone can have their own wires, each with tons of bands on it.

14 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The Constitution insures that this be done fairly, even though private companies operate in many of those systems.

In context, this statement is nonsensical.

14 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Ultimately, the people at large own those airwaves and digital systems, even though powerful and rich companies operate within them. 

To recap, signal traveling thru a wire isn't at all equivalent to signal traveling thru the airwaves. Rich and powerful companies do not have some kind of corp magic that changes this reality.

14 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Private companies must not be allowed to censor public opinion the way they do now. 

I believe what you are trying to not say is that private companies must be compelled by Gov, to amplify speech that you like. The 1A unambiguously disagrees with this assertion.

14 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Just because Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post, does not mean that he should be able to control what is published in that newspaper (the second most influential newspaper in the country).  A free press is at stake when his personal political views are employed to control and censor information.

Folks who have been closely watching for Bezos influence over WaPo would absolutely welcome your links to articles that were altered due to Bezos interference, along with any clear evidence that doesn't lead down endless rabbit holes.

That aside, this seems like a reasonable position. However it isn't especially relevant to the discussion of who controls signals over wirelines (network operators, within specs set by the IEEE) or whether US Gov can compel private entities to carry speech - even speech by powerful political interests (1A says no).

14 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

In Russia, of course, where there is no 1A, Vlad Putin does control what is published in the newspapers and on TV.  Is that O.K.?

To quote Pres. Hinckley: "I do not recommend it."

Edited May 11, 2021 by Chum

[Teancum]

24 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

What happened to "Believe all women"?

When did I say that?

[Stargazer]

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So the Internet already existed. Al Gore was just the first one to use it. Or something. 

As pathetic as Al Gore has become or has been made to appear, I think we can lay off on laughing at his claims concerning the internet. It is true enough that the DoD's ARPANET (Advanced Research Projects Agency Network), developed in 1966, was the technical foundation of the Internet. This is well before Mr. Gore was first elected to Congress. However, Gore was an important figure in the birth of the actual Internet.

Senator Al Gore authored the High Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991, commonly referred to as "The Gore Bill", after hearing the 1988 concept for a National Research Network submitted to Congress by a group chaired by Leonard Kleinrock. The bill was passed on 9 December 1991 and led to the National Information Infrastructure (NII) which Gore called the information superhighway.  See: High Performance Computing Act of 1991

Let's give the guy some credit.

[Chum]

15 minutes ago, Teancum said:

When did I say that?

I dunno. Want me to say it? I'm kind of a shill for women (women: huzzah. another thing we didn't ask for).

[Stargazer]

15 minutes ago, Chum said:

Where did you get this? The early hardware came out of Xerox PARC labs and TCP/IP originated at Stanford and UCLA. That core tech was deployed before the DoD showed up (to trade cash and resources for space on the network).

Regardless, the DoD's ARPANET was nevertheless the precursor to the Internet. What Xerox, Stanford, and UCLA did was not the Internet. They contributed technologically to it, but they didn't invent it. You might as well say that Xerox invented the Apple Macintosh computer -- because Apple incorporated some of PARC's ideas into their product.

 

[Stargazer]

20 minutes ago, Teancum said:

When did I say that?

You didn't. Since you're skeptical that Ms. Givens is telling the truth about leaving the Maxwell Institute, I'm just reminding you of the feminist slogan exemplified by the hashtag #BelieveWomen.

I think it is particularly telling that you're skeptical. It doesn't suit your narrative about the Church, so of course you cannot believe that's what actually happened.

 

[Chum]

36 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

DoD's ARPANET was nevertheless the precursor to the Internet.

This is true.

36 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

What Xerox, Stanford, and UCLA did was not the Internet.

Regarding the assertion that the military invented the internet, I evidenced that isn't correct.

You are pushing back against that. That implies your position is that the military invented the internet. Is that true?

What complicates this is DARPA is credited for "initiating the pioneering ARPANET in 1969".  However what DARPA did in 1969 was award contracts for the development of a packet switched network (invented in UK, 1965).  It was not DoD employees who created the core tech but men employed by Xerox and universities.

I'd counter your trailing comparison with this. Saying the DoD invented the internet is like saying the DoD invented the F35.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Is this your opinion or do you have something with authority to back it up?

I looked up and consolidated Church sources (scriptures, articles, etc.) on the topic of common consent, what it is used for, and how it plays out procedurally and attitudinally.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Chum said:

Where did you get this? The early hardware came out of Xerox PARC labs and TCP/IP originated at Stanford and UCLA. That core tech was deployed before the DoD showed up (to trade cash and resources for space on the network).

Are you mashing these confusing things together because you heard someone else do it?  If so, they are not serving you well.

I've already explained that public airwaves are a scarce, public resource that is meted out by US Gov. This isn't equivalent to private wireline networks. Wireline network transport frequencies are established by the IEEE, a professional engineering association, not the US Gov.

edit: Maybe this will help explain the difference. Public airwaves are a scarce resource because there is only one. Gov mandates who can broadcast, in order to prevent signals from overlapping each other.

A wire can carry the same frequencies that are broadcast over the air. However we can add more wires right next to it - each carrying their own frequency bands. We can have many, many wires. oNe BAziLLioN wIrES!  Wireline offers such a massive bounty of frequencies that wireline bandwith isn't a scarce resource. Everyone can have their own wires, each with tons of bands on it.

In context, this statement is nonsensical.

To recap, signal traveling thru a wire isn't at all equivalent to signal traveling thru the airwaves. Rich and powerful companies do not have some kind of corp magic that changes this reality.

I believe what you are trying to not say is that private companies must be compelled by Gov, to amplify speech that you like. The 1A unambiguously disagrees with this assertion.

Folks who have been closely watching for Bezos influence over WaPo would absolutely welcome your links to articles that were altered due to Bezos interference, along with any clear evidence that doesn't lead down endless rabbit holes.

That aside, this seems like a reasonable position. However it isn't especially relevant to the discussion of who controls signals over wirelines (network operators, within specs set by the IEEE) or whether US Gov can compel private entities to carry speech - even speech by powerful political interests (1A says no).

................................

From the POV of those rich corporations which own Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, and other social media platforms, even section 230 of the updated Telecommunications Act, and anti-trust law are too much governance, yet the coverage included in that Act is common carriers, radio, telephone, cable, broadband, etc., not limited at all in the way you suggest.  That is why the Federal Communications Commission rides herd on all those matters.  Instead of leaving everything to section 230 and anti-trust law, however, I am insisting that the inherent right of the American people under 1A is to have all social media platforms brought under Federal regulation -- instead of the chaos and subversion which you seem to prefer.  I want to see the FCC given broader authority to prevent systematic violations of 1A by social media platforms.  Otherwise 1A is a dead letter.  David L. Hudson, Jr., “In the Age of Social Media, Expand the Reach of the First Amendment,” Human Rights Magazine 43/4 (Oct 20, 2018), of the American Bar Association, online at  https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/the-ongoing-challenge-to-define-free-speech/in-the-age-of-socia-media-first-amendment/ .

Senator Ellzabeth Warren prefers to break up the social media platforms or seek anti-trust legislation.  I do not believe that her proposals will be effective.  We are already well along the path to total domination by social media companies, if only due to the massive data they have acquired about all of us, and due to their clever use of algorithms.  They already own us, Chum.  And it sounds like your bleatings will only lead us directly into an ironclad "1984" scenario.

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So the Internet already existed. Al Gore was just the first one to use it. Or something. 

Congressman Gore greased the legislative and thus economic wheels used by the burgeoning internet.  He was a visionary, who saw the need, same as he did for the global warming problem -- which some luddites still cannot accept.  We need to stop the errant mockery of a good man.

[jkwilliams]

6 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Congressman Gore greased the legislative and thus economic wheels used by the burgeoning internet.  He was a visionary, who saw the need, same as he did for the global warming problem -- which some luddites still cannot accept.  We need to stop the errant mockery of a good man.

Yup. Then-Senator Gore authored and introduced the bill in Congress that broadened ARPANET out of defense-specific use and into what became the Internet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Performance_Computing_Act_of_1991

[Tacenda]

19 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Yup. Then-Senator Gore authored and introduced the bill in Congress that broadened ARPANET out of defense-specific use and into what became the Internet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Performance_Computing_Act_of_1991

I had no idea! I voted for him and got wrath from anyone that knew. At the time I was hoping for a cure for my mom's Alzheimer's because at the time they were looking into stem cell use. 

[AtlanticMike]

52 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

He was a visionary, who saw the need, same as he did for the global warming problem -

One of Al Gore's houses uses 19,200 (kwh) every month, compared to the average U.S. household that uses around 950 (kwh).

  In September of 2016, his house used 30,000 (kwh), as much energy as a typical American family burns in 34 months.

  During a 12 month period in 2016/2017 his heated pool devoured 66,100 (kwh), enough energy to power 6 households for a year.

The day I start taking advice from Al Gore about environmental issues, is the same day I'll start taking advice from Oprah Winfrey about dieting and healthy food consumption. Hopefully that day won't come.