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

271–280 of 602 posts

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

#271

Post by ak217 »

citilife wrote: post #236
cozuya wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When did CNN viewers storm the capitol in attempt to overthrow the elected government, leading to the deaths of 7 people?

There's actually a lot of clips of CNN & other reporters helping and pushing protesters into the Capital Building... https://twitter.com/LaurenWitzkeDE/status/134990457311734169... Also, only two persons died of wounds confirmed at the Capital (both protestors). The only person who was shot, was recorded by the "reporter" in the video above was egging on the police & protestors at the time. https://www.washingtonpost…

Please don't post disinformation here. https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-9906367046

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

#272

Post by notional »

_-david-_ wrote: post #244
ABeeSea wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Parler was kicked off of AWS for violating AWS’s policies. I’m pretty sure I don’t have to tell you that YouTube and Facebook don’t use AWS.

Why were they removed from Google and Apple's app stores while Facebook, Youtube and Twitter are still available? Twitter uses AWS for some of their stuff. Why aren't they removed for violating AWS's policies?

Do you really need an explanation of why a multibillion dollar company wasn't removed and why a fringe app was?

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

#273

Post by jolux »

arrosenberg wrote: post #240
jolux wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not really the case. The government is accountable to the public, but it also has the power to conceal things from the public, and take unilateral action in the case of the executive branch. What I mean by "the public" are individuals cooperating to boycott organizations they see as corrosive to democracy, which is the typical solution for problems like this. The government is expressly and pretty strongly for…

I tend to disagree with the notion that this letter is chilling on free speech. There is a difference between criticism of this government and agitprop designed to undermine the system of government. The 1A is designed to prevent the former, and this letter seems pretty clearly designed to fish for that latter. I think it's a bad letter because Congress is trying to abrogate their responsibilities and act like this i…

>There is a difference between criticism of this government and agitprop designed to undermine the system of government. The 1A is designed to prevent the former, and this letter seems pretty clearly designed to fish for that latter.

I mostly agree on the merits, but arguing this point is difficult because regardless of what the 1A was designed to do, at this point its legal interpretation has become broad enough that it's hard to imagine the government having a legitimate role in regulating speech here. The framers don't seem to have foreseen a crisis like we face.

>I think it's a bad letter because Congress is trying to abrogate their responsibilities and act like this is AT&T's problem, when it isn't. They need to break up the monopolies and give people the tools to hold these businesses accountable, as you said.

Yes, the effect that the cable companies have on the television market makes it very difficult for individuals to take effective action against these organizations. I think Congress should be investigating antitrust action against the cable companies, but these don't seem to be bad questions to asking them while they still make up a monopoly.

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

#274

Post by colpabar »

shakezula wrote: post #227
kryogen1c wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Things in the past which were labeled misinformation I know that item-level thinking like this is necessary to gain emotional traction with people, but this issue is just so obvious at a systems-level. the idea that we, right now the instant youre reading this, have discovered 100% of what there is to learn and 0% of what we know is wrong is so painfully, horrifically, obviously stupid (we've had computers for thir…

> misinformation is combat with MORE discussion, not less! I wholeheartedly agree, but how do you get the other side to listen? The saying goes something like "You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into."

> How do you get the other side to listen?

Pretend you think like them, and make arguments that go against that thinking. Unfortunately, the way the media exists today this never happens, and both sides just attack strawmen in ways that get people to click their headlines and listen to their talking heads.

I think it's disingenuous to paint the entire "other side" as unreasonable, but I may be misinterpreting what you mean by "other side" here. There will always be unreasonable people, and I don't have a solution for them. However, I think _a lot_ of people are very tired of being demonized for disagreeing. Not every republican is a rabid tea partier, and not every democrat supports antifa.

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

#275

Post by rayiner »

shakezula wrote: post #227
kryogen1c wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Things in the past which were labeled misinformation I know that item-level thinking like this is necessary to gain emotional traction with people, but this issue is just so obvious at a systems-level. the idea that we, right now the instant youre reading this, have discovered 100% of what there is to learn and 0% of what we know is wrong is so painfully, horrifically, obviously stupid (we've had computers for thir…

> misinformation is combat with MORE discussion, not less! I wholeheartedly agree, but how do you get the other side to listen? The saying goes something like "You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into."

The purpose isn’t to get “the other side to listen.” Its to get moderate to listen, and to make sure the other side feels heard. That procedural aspect of free speech is at least as important, if not more so, than the truth-finding aspect of free speech.

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

#277

Post by [deleted] »

citilife wrote: post #85

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 Broadcast…

[deleted]

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

#278

Post by hntrader »

BitwiseFool wrote: post #183
macspoofing wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

I can't help but think 'puritanism' is a personality trait and there has always been a sizable portion of the American public dedicated to policing the thoughts and behavior of others. The underlying ideology may have changed, but the archetype sure hasn't. Maybe the so-called SJWs of today would have been Temperance activists 100 years ago.

It's an authoritarian personality type which exists on both the left and the right. It's remarkable that when we look at the many personality subtraits of authoritarian types on the left and the right, they align extremely closely with one another.

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

#279

Post by goatcode »

vkou wrote: post #135
goatcode wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Judging what is and is not misinformation must always be in the hands of the people You disagree with letting censorship be decided on democratically?

The thing about democracy is that there are so many levels of government - and quite literally any decision made by a democratically elected government can be condemned as undemocratic (Because some other layer of government - or better yet, a Joe on the street - does not agree with it.) This is how you get people shouting about how a democratically elected president, who was given, by a democratically elected congre…

> democracy

> democratically elected president

That's not really what I was talking about.

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

#280

Post by temp8964 »

ardy42 wrote: post #258
kryogen1c wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Things in the past which were labeled misinformation I know that item-level thinking like this is necessary to gain emotional traction with people, but this issue is just so obvious at a systems-level. the idea that we, right now the instant youre reading this, have discovered 100% of what there is to learn and 0% of what we know is wrong is so painfully, horrifically, obviously stupid (we've had computers for thir…

> misinformation is combat with MORE discussion, not less! The problem with that idea is that it takes more effort to debunk a lie than to tell one. It also takes more effort to absorb a debunking than a lie. That's why disinformation works. Here's an example: JFK ate babies occasionally, and the media hushed it up. Oswald was actually a secret high-level CIA operative, and was so outraged by this that he assassinate…

Your example actually tells something. Nobody would believe your JFK baby eating story. It is easy to write a fake story, but it is not easy to have lots of people believe your fake story. "Misinformation" can spread because they seem plausible to enough people, not because they are "bullshit" like your example.
Post reply on HN