Respectfully disagree here - about the idea that TN might as well be a sex site with so many people posting inappropriate content. For those visiting True Nudists who treat it like a site for gathering and sharing pornography, those bad apples are so easy to spot and don't bother me, except for the way these people make the website look poorly. If the administrators were more diligent about faster removal of the questionable (and without a doubt sexual) content, it would be nice, and might help draw in more real, healthy interaction between nudists.
I wholeheartedly agree that there should be a fast, anonymous avenue for the removal of glaringly sexual content in TN. No matter what, it will mean some will abuse the privilege, using those tools for their own, sometimes misguided, purpose, but that sort of person will always do so. Any censorship has weaknesses and strengths.
A few words on the above mentioned failed TN experiment last year, where words some unknown jackass or program deemed as inappropriate were edited out ~ that was ridiculous, though maybe slightly more understandable due to liability, except when it was blanket-applied to privately-traded messages, a place where I proposed no outside entity should ever tread. With the credit card company execs calling the shots, verbal freedom in here was trounced for a time, and I'm glad that's been shelved. I'll compare it to health insurance company personnel making life and death medical decisions that should only be made between a doctor and patient, with those choices based on medical knowledge, not profit margins. Besides the glaring contradiction of allowing unknown (and marginally-trained in the field) people to know about a person's very personal medical information, it's a very sick way to do business, and stomps all over the rules of confidentiality. My opinion on this may sound idealistic and so be it. The pharmaceutical and hospital industries are utterly screwed up, and overtly and negatively complicit in so many niches of our lives now. Just be sure you don't take that new drug that will fix everything wrong with you if you are allergic to it or any of its components - before you ever take it - what's that? If you are like me, you ask, how can anyone know they are allergic to a drug they've never taken? That, my nude friend, is the real question. End program.
Back to censorship: Now that another major player in the fucking morass that is most social media has decided to toss out oversight of their content, choosing 'community policing' as all that is needed to stop the increasing flow of lies and falsehood-riddled verbal diarrhea, it is time for everyone who is paying attention to stop pretending about what should be considered a reputable source for news. If a website, media channel, or any avenue for moving information around has no interest in maintaining, at minimum, some small piece of the truth through secondary, verified sources or any fact-checking methods, they should not be allowed to call themselves a 'news source' any longer. Admittedly, it is the consumer of information making mistakes when they take the leap from opinionated claptrap on social media to a point of fact.
For the media outlets which fashion themselves to appear to be news but are nothing of the sort, freely mixing editorial content with some skewed version of their own convenient truth, I'll coin a new name for this misperceived content -- let's start calling it a 'Knews Sores'; 'Knews' because someone out there will think it looks & sounds credible, as in, "I just Knews it was trues when I saw it", and 'Sores' because this disregard for the truth is helping to create a deep wound in democracy that will not heal until it has the ointment of factual truth applied to it. And to push the metaphor too far, I think some of the wounds are now well past topical ointment and we'll need truth surgery to heal it. Some suggestible people hear a 'fact' or a story or a point-of-view that SOUNDS like what they WANT to be true, and their desire for it to be real news is all it takes to begin to garner more mistaken merit through their act of 're-twitting' it without taking a moment or making any effort to confirm it for themselves, and soon the misconception is promoted and strengthened, with its falseness finding its way into the mainstream by little more than being said over and over. Say something so many times and it can start to take on a life of its own, regardless of its voracity. Complacency on both the part of the individual and any source involved in pushing forward the false story - by not doing the research - promotes incoherency and confusion. At any point in this ultimately dangerous game of global Telephone, the credibility in the information stream is diminished to a point where all news is seen as less believable. This contagion very much needs to be wrestled back to reality or we'll be lost in the tidal wave of lies on more lies.
It is generally understood that no matter what someone thinks they can say about anyone or any thing, we Americans do have limits on what we say without breaking specific laws. Libelous and slanderous comments must be questioned and should be promptly prosecuted when it is warranted, and the judicial oversight once the case arrives in the halls of justice must be held high above any political discourse. There is still a right and a wrong in this messy situation, but somewhere along the way, the extremes to the right and the left have become so self-righteous that they wrongly believe they can say anything. These limitations attached to free speech are part of what keeps society from slipping into something other than civilized discourse.
If a website, media channel, or any avenue for moving information around has no interest in maintaining, at minimum, some small piece of the truth through secondary, verified sources or any fact-checking methods, they should not be allowed to call themselves a 'news source' any longer.
The problem here is that EVERYONE has a bias. Political bias, religious bias, sexual bias, etc. Zuckerberg learned this the hard way. The "fact checkers" he employed where very biased in one direction. Our mainstream media and most of the side-stream media (blogs, etc.) lean one way or the other. Some of them lean so far one way, they embarrass themselves and their ratings prove it. I don't believe there is a truly un-biased news source in existence today. By moving to community notes like Twitter ("X") did, you can get away from the one-sided argument that completely ignores the other side.
Go back and look at some of the "Fact Checks" over the last 4 years. Most of them have been proven to be completely wrong (Hunters laptop was Russian disinformation ring a bell?). The rest were very skewed as to what the the real truth was.
Bottom line is we live in a very polarized time and it is important to hear ALL sides of these issues.
John aka cobeachbum
Whats missing in this if I am not mistaken is the active participation of the admins. Which is why some are resigned to the eventual takeover of the site.Respectfully disagree here - about the idea that TN might as well be a sex site with so many people posting inappropriate content. For those visiting True Nudists who treat it like a site for gathering and sharing pornography, those bad apples are so easy to spot and don't bother me, except for the way these people make the website look poorly. If the administrators were more diligent about faster removal of the questionable (and without a doubt sexual) content, it would be nice, and might help draw in more real, healthy interaction between nudists.I wholeheartedly agree that there should be a fast, anonymous avenue for the removal of glaringly sexual content in TN. No matter what, it will mean some will abuse the privilege, using those tools for their own, sometimes misguided, purpose, but that sort of person will always do so. Any censorship has weaknesses and strengths.
Actions
Back to TopicsReply to TopicShare this topic
Get paid just by sending us users/traffic.
Signup takes seconds, start now!
Signup as an affiliate!