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

191–200 of 602 posts

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

#191

Post by maerF0x0 »

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

Probably around the same time as it became socially unacceptable not to vote for them? Note how you had to qualify yourself as a democrat voter as some kind of proof point of the validity of your claims?

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

#192

Post by LanceH »

cool_dude85 wrote: post #112
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…

Hard disagree. We can censor, for example, child pornography, bomb-building tutorials, and revenge porn. I'm not going to fight against censoring them on the grounds that allowing them to be censored will allow anything else to be censored too.

For all of those, they passed a law which has to stand up to judicial scrutiny.

Leaning on a company to eliminate speech is censorship without review.

edit: removed extra word

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

#193

Post by offby37years »

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?

If you're convinced fascism has arrived in America, you'll excuse any means necessary to topple the dictator and to prevent a reoccurrence. The issue is in doing so, they've become the tyrannical force they propose to oppose.

“Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear." — Harry S. Truman

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

#194

Post by minikites »

bpodgursky wrote: post #147
minikites wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which party is the "one party" here?

Probably the one with the presidency, house, senate, most of the media, and social media content moderation.

I just don't understand the parent post, the Democrats want MORE people to be able to vote, how is that "planning to never lose an election again"? The Republicans are the only ones who ever fight to suppress votes, most recently the attacks on absentee voting in Georgia, which are a direct result of two Democrats winning there and has absolutely nothing to do with "illegal immigrants" or election security on any level.

Which one sounds more like "planning to never lose an election again", the scheme where more people vote or the scheme where fewer people vote?

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

#195

Post by swirepe »

amadeuspagel wrote: post #158
cool_dude85 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hard disagree. We can censor, for example, child pornography, bomb-building tutorials, and revenge porn. I'm not going to fight against censoring them on the grounds that allowing them to be censored will allow anything else to be censored too.

> child pornography, bomb-building tutorials, and revenge porn None of these things are misinformation.

Technically true, but try building a bomb from one of those tutorials

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

#196

Post by ntsplnkv2 »

hpcjoe wrote: post #114
axaxs wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is -very- partisan, and equivalent to poking a wasp nest with a stick. The country is very, very divided, not just between D vs R but also progressive vs...everyone else. I wish I had the answers(surprise, I don't), but I feel we should find some commonality, some give and take, and get on a path toward a semblance of unity. Trying to silence your opposition is what I'd call the complete opposite of that approach.

I think the only way to handle this is to stand up for common sense, and call out those attempting to use 1984 as a playbook. To shine the disinfecting light of day upon things like this. To vote the idiots who push this crap, out. This could be making sure you primary them, recall them, or elect other persons. Seriously, allegiance to political parties is not what I am looking for in my elected reps. I want them to…

Yep, the partisanship is absolutely insane, far worse than in years past.

The problem is now moderates are getting forced to join sides - which leads to even more polarizing candidates.

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

#197

Post by trey-jones »

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…

I agree with this:

> Never the hands of authorities whether those be government or corporate.

But I'm not sure about this:

> Judging what is and is not misinformation must always be in the hands of the people.

It's definitely a very difficult problem. I like to think that I personally can distinguish decently well between information and mis/dis-information, but I look around and see plenty of people who simply cannot. And I could also be wrong about myself. The pandemic itself has at least had the effect of showing me that I can't always figure out what's true by intuition.

So I guess I believe that people in general are not good at making the distinction. We're too emotional. I'm inclined to say that a digital solution has the best chance of defeating this digital problem. A computer for President, I guess.

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

#198

Post by mnouquet »

macspoofing wrote: post #89
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 Acad…

> When Trump got elected

Gamergate pre-dates Trump, and was the exact same mentality, which you can probably trace back to the 1970's if not before.

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

#199

Post by mindslight »

sneak wrote: post #184
mindslight wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The New York Times is a corporation with a government-granted charter that grants it things like limited liability. It's fallacious to characterize it as just some ad-hoc "group" of individuals joining together to individually exercise their rights. And yes, I agree that we don't actually have a free press. Given our microkernel government, institutions like the New York Times are better seen as part of the de facto…

Important to remember that corporations, like all groups, have no mouths, no hands, and cannot act. All corporate actions, all corporate speech, is carried out by individual humans. Group rights are individual human rights, as groups have no brain and cannot act.

Except that there is a distinction between an individual performing an action of their own volition, and an individual performing an action to obtain income. The first represents the true will of the individual, while the latter only requires their desire to have a roof over their head.

And as I said, the entity of the NYT is afforded protections that individuals are not. If individual rights are supremely important to the individuals making up the NYT, the individuals involved are still free to act outside of their corporate shell.

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

#200

Post by bonestamp2 »

wdn wrote: post #96
TrispusAttucks wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's even worse when you think people are evil simply because they disagree with you!

You should see how upset people were when you told them you think Trump is a great president. At my last job, the IT admin was so upset that he told me that he will not do any of my incidents. No discussion what so ever.

That's unfortunate that he chose to respond that way.

I might disagree with you on Trump but I think we probably have far more in common than we disagree on. I don't know how anyone thinks we're going to solve our real problems if we can't have constructive conversations about where we agree and disagree, and how we can both compromise to work toward what is probably a shared goal.

I believe most Americans have the same basic goals: good health, prosperity, security, and strong community. Most of where we disagree is around how to achieve those goals. Unfortunately, too many people get caught up in the "how" and that it makes it so much harder to get anything done.

Post reply on HN