On BBC News 24 TV this morning there was a tech show that was dominated by a report from the Republic of Korea (‘South Korea’).
After explaining how nasty some Korean people are in writing their opinions about other people, the BBC person said that the government of Korea was going to bring in a new law that would demand that anyone writing an opinion on to the internet would have to give their name and ID number. The only criticism of this new law (which I believe is going to come into effect next year) offered was “some people do not think it goes far enough”.
I wonder if the ‘Federalist’ would have been written if ‘Publius‘ and the rest had to sign their correct names. Or ‘Cato’s letters‘ – or so many of the other great publications in history.
Or indeed most opinion comments on this (or many other) internet sites.
“If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear by giving your right name” – I hope I do not have to explain how absurd that position is. Some people (such as me) really do not have anything to lose and can sign their name to any opinion they believe in – but most people have families, jobs, positions (and so on) and may sometimes wish to give their true opinion about a person or issue without putting their life on the line.
I could mention historical examples to the BBC (some of which I mention above), but as the BBC people think (to judge by one show I watched) that the “tribes of Angles and Saxons” brought Christianity to “pagan Roman Britain” and (in the ads for another show) claimed that the war that brought Constantine to power had broken “centuries of peace” I do not think they would understand what I was talking about.
I do not know whether it is the statism of the BBC or their lack of knowledge that bothers me more.
I quite agree. Otherwise we’d have people supporting terrorists, and that could clearly never be allowed.
So I’m off to celebrate an act of terrorism this evening.
For the benefit of the Secret State Police (sorry, Serious Organised Crimes Agency; presumably they promote serious and organised crimes in place of the ad-hoc ones we are used to, and which the police are too fuck-idle to do anything about) my personal details are as follows:
Brian Hooper
38, Ridsdale Street,
Darlington,
County Durham
Geheimestaatspolizei Identity Card Number : UP Y0UR5
I enjoyed your comment brain.
Surely this does not supprise you. I frequently see people on New24 and the Daily Politics suggest regulation of the internet by government. The tendency is that BBC person agrees with them.
“I do not know whether it is the statism of the BBC or their lack of knowledge that bothers me more.”
My heart says `their lack of knowledge’, whilst my head says `their statism’-should worry you more. My spleen says `they’re fuckwits and that should worry you the most.’
“I do not know whether it is the statism of the BBC or their lack of knowledge that bothers me more.”
You (we all) should worry about their statism more; they can – and do – use that to impose their ignorance on others.
Ignorance without power is relatively harmless.
Might I suggest that the worst part of the entire affair is that, as UK compulsory license fee payers, you are funding this dangerous misinformation/propaganda. Were the BBC allowed to stand on its own financial merits, they would either get more informed, less malevolent, both, or go broke as people fled the organization for less deranged alternatives.
I agree with the above comments. Although one must remember that P.B.S. in the United States gets taxpayers money to.
I must also apologize to Kevin – when his comment appeared on my system at home I stupidly thought he was talking about me rather than brian (lack of sleep) and replied thanking him.
Obviously the BBC hates the internet. A few years ago I had a 56k modem and the internet was slow and cranky. The missus and I now have 4 PCs sharing a very fast DSL line straight. Streaming media from around the globe that the BBC can’t control. Soon enough the connection will be fast enough to chuck the TV in a skip. So what about the old license fee? The smarter heads at the BBC must know that their business model is hopelessly outdated and that they’re fighting a rearguard action against technology. I’m still on the old analogue TV cos everything I really want comes down the wire anyway. My phone picks up more channels than my TV.
When they turn off the analogue in a coupla years we’re gonna see an insurrection that will destroy the BBC as we know it. Freeview is utter shite. Seen all the ads for it? How many mention that you need a box for every TV in the house? How many mention that you can’t watch one channel and tape another? Or that it is lower bandwidth than analogue? Or that it ain’t gonna provide HD for that expensive plasma screen you just bought? Doesn’t every Freeview box have to be connected to a phone line? Just one TLA to ponder: REN.
I used to work telesales for BT when they had a deal with Sky and OnDigital/ITVDigital (the fore-runner to Freeview*) and Freeview was a real hard sell because it was (a) shite and (b) had so many uncovered postcodes and new aerial installations that most people just went Sky or CaTV.
Short answer to the why on that is that people who want more TV will jump in with two feet and go Sky or NTL/Telewest. Freeview isn’t that much cheaper and is practically more complicated for very many people than the much higher quality alternatives.
There are two pending things in the UK that will result in blood hitting the ceiling. The first is ID cards and the second is the analogue switch-off.
*Freeview. Yeah right. Apart from the TV license, obviously. And the aerial upgrades and re-wiring the phone lines and all the rest. Yup, great prices will be charged for pensioners living alone…