Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Letters from House members to cable providers [pdf]

eshoo.house.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 602 posts

Re: Letters from House members to cable providers [pdf]

#81

Post by rayiner »

CivBase wrote: post #52

> Experts have noted that the right-wing media ecosystem is “much more susceptible...to disinformation, lies, and half-truths.” Citation from the PDF: https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/o... That book does not cite any evidence for that assertion. Here's the relevant excerpt: > IN THE PRECEDING three chapters we examined the propaganda feedback loop, how it forms, and how it facilitates disinf…

Maybe you could say that the authors of those sources were pushing misinformation?

Re: Letters from House members to cable providers [pdf]

#82

Post by dang »

runlevel1 wrote: post #5

There is no such demand in the PDF linked. EDIT: In case the title gets changed, it is currently "House Democrats Demand Cable Providers to Censor Misinformation [PDF]" EDIT 2: After all the downvotes, I looked again but still am not seeing it.

The submitted title was "House Democrats Demand Cable Providers to Censor Misinformation [pdf]". That broke the site guidelines by editorializing. We've changed it now to something that is hopefully more accurate.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Letters from House members to cable providers [pdf]

#83

Post by tiahura »

omgwtfbyobbq wrote: post #74
rayiner wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If the misinformation on certain media outlets is considered by the courts to have incited the insurrection , then it may not be considered free speech. The legal standard for "inciting or producing imminent lawless action" is given by Brandenburg v. Ohio . In that case, which upheld speech openly advocating for violence against specific groups to be protected speech. It overturned an Ohio law that had been directe…

It is, but I'm not certain the courts will interpret it the same way when applied to a large media corporation making many statements over a long period of time. Like rayiner said, the courts have been protective of media corporation's free speech, but those were cases involving defamation or intentional infliction of emotional distress, not an insurrection with the intent to detain and possibly murder elected offici…

Both of those cases were unanimous decisions upholding free speech. Moreover, they were civil, not criminal cases.

Re: Letters from House members to cable providers [pdf]

#84

Post by dang »

temp8964 wrote: post #57

Flagged. Lol. Because the letters didn't use the exact words "demand", "censor". Haha.

You broke the site guidelines with that title, which was neither accurate nor neutral (see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26240472). Using titles to editorialize isn't "haha", it's against the rules and will cause you to lose submission privileges on HN. That goes double for divisive, inflammatory topics like this one. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.

I've changed the title and turned off the flags because (a) this is an interesting new phenomenon in the sense of the HN guidelines, and (b) the thread is fortunately not a huge flamewar, at least not yet.

Re: Letters from House members to cable providers [pdf]

#85

Post by citilife »

This is such a dangerous game to play.

CNN knowingly misleads the public every single day. It's effectively public knowledge if anyone cares to investigate themselves.

Going after FOX because the ruling party disagrees with them, but leaving CNN alone is the definition of authoritarian, regardless of your views. You can't single out voices.

Further, who owns CNN? (Turner Broadcasting System)

Who owns Turner Broadcasting System? (WarnerMedia)

Who owns WarnerMedia? (AT&T)

Interesting... so AT&T is being lobbied not to carry its competition, while leaving its own broadcasting alone.

Re: Letters from House members to cable providers [pdf]

#86

Post by jolux »

edbob wrote: post #78
jolux wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The inevitability of the abuse of political power is not something that has to be debated over and over again in every thread. I don't contest this, what I contest is the idea that there is comparable misinformation on both sides. rayiner has since updated his post with some examples that he thinks constitute misinformation by news sources themselves, but before the only example given was the tweets from the Washing…

I responded about the future because the quote you disagreed said "there will be", and I think the general tone of discussion here is around the potential future for abuse. We've seen notable comments by Democratic voters who are legitimately afraid of what their party will become. In this context, I'm not sure if current comparisons of misinformation are very relevant. Having explained my thinking, I'll make sure to…

I agree that the potential for future abuse of a power to regulate misinformation is high. That does not necessarily mean that it outweighs the current value, but I think reasonable people can disagree about this and I think it’s a debate we should be having, given the events of 1/6.

I don’t want to get into an argument about which side is worse here or whether they’re equivalent. Suffice it to say, we have different perspectives and I don’t think discussing that is enlightening here.

Re: Letters from House members to cable providers [pdf]

#87

Post by macspoofing »

What's new here? This has been a new normal for Democratic establishment over the last 4 yours. Democratic establishment essentially captured major culture institutions, specifically Mainstream Media, Big Tech and Social Media and Academia, and now they are settings their sights on internet providers and cable companies.

Re: Letters from House members to cable providers [pdf]

#88

Post by protonfish »

njharman wrote: post #35

Judging what is and is not misinformation must always be in the hands of the people. Never the hands of authorities whether those be government or corporate. Why must fight all censorship. Because once you allow "a thing" to be censored, it becomes possible to censor "any thing". Things in the past which were labeled misinformation and would have been suppressed for even longer (or forever) under current social attit…

"The People" believe whatever information has been promoted the most. To claim that we should do nothing to stop malevolent organizations from radicalizing vulnerable citizens is reckless. To lay the blame on individuals to fight this is victim-blaming. We need to battle this industrialized con artistry with whatever power we have - including police, courts, and laws.

Throwing up our hands because "censorship bad!" is sick and wrong.

Re: Letters from House members to cable providers [pdf]

#89

Post by macspoofing »

tarboreus wrote: post #16

Is anyone finding this terrifying? When did democrafts, the party I vote for, become the people calling for tight censorship in every sector? Weren't the last people to make this move (more more ineffectively, thankfully) the Christian right? Is there something we can do to stand up for speech?

>When did democrafts, the party I vote for, become the people calling for tight censorship in every sector?

When Trump got elected and it broke people's brains. At that point, everything became permissible in order to fight Trump. Now that Trump is gone, you can't put the genie back in the bottle.

Since Trump, the Democratic establishment has effectively captured Mainstream Media, Big Tech and Social Media (with Academia being already firmly in the Democratic tent). Mainstream media and Big Tech isn't even pretending to be objective anymore. There is now an incestuous pipeline between executive leadership in those institutions and the Democratic establishment. And I say 'establishment' because it isn't just the Conservatives, Republicans and Libertarians that are getting censored. I don't like the anti-war, anti-American, class-focused Left, but those groups also get targeted, as are Progressives that focus on class (as opposed to cultural) issues.

>Weren't the last people to make this move (more more ineffectively, thankfully) the Christian right?

Apt analogy. This is the 'Christian Evangelical Right' from the 90s, with similar level of puritanism ... and with the backing of media companies and big tech. So much much worse.

Re: Letters from House members to cable providers [pdf]

#90

Post by NoodleIncident »

bhupy wrote: post #53
omgwtfbyobbq wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While it's not the best, people are familiar with it. The replacement is certainly more accurate. In this case, is the misinformation present directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action?

> In this case, is the misinformation present directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action? We have several Supreme Court decisions that can help answer this question. First of all, misinformation was established to be protected speech in NYTimes vs Sullivan, where the SCOTUS unanimously found that the New York Times was within its rights to publish an adver…

> "nothing more than the advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time"

So for this case, since there was a definite future time, it would indeed be imminent?

Post reply on HN