I think they would do better to solve the business model at the genesis of the issue. The Attention economy brought the conspiracy and outrage machine to each of our phones. There's an addict in my pocket. We need the political willpower to say "Yea you are a rich money making company, but a harm for X, Y reasons, and therefore this is the new regulation for companies profiting on an attention based model." There will be fallout, solutions require it, we must have courage and stop putting companies and money on a pedestal above people.
Letters from House members to cable providers [pdf]
301–310 of 602 posts
Re: Letters from House members to cable providers [pdf]
#302Earlier 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.
Hmm - 4 years of an administration doing exactly what you're describing (silencing opposition viewpoints) and now it's all unity and kumbayah? Your post is quite ironic.
Obama did far more to silence opposing viewpoints than Trump did. But you probably don't know about what Obama did, because his administration's intimidation and jailing of reporters worked.
How many reporters did the Trump administration throw in jail?
Re: Letters from House members to cable providers [pdf]
#303To determine misinformation you must first determine information. We would need to setup some government entity to determine true information. We could call it the "Ministry of Truth". Unless that name is already taken? ... the cold wind blows...
If only somehow the government could determine what is true... When somebody is accused of a crime we just have to say "Guilty according to whom?" and let them go, because there's no way to know what's true. Sure the DNA says he murdered 3 children, but what are those scientists really after! If only there were some organized system for appointed people with great track records to somehow listen to both sides of an a…
> If only somehow the government could determine what is true...
You say this in relation to a criminal trial but two things:
1. The government can not determine guilt or innocence. It determines guilt beyond a reasonable doubt which is a distinction worth considering. There is an implicit admission of uncertainty and unknowability.
2. A panel of judges determining truth is a concept that has existed historically and in fiction. It plays out exactly as you'd expect it would. The powerful control the panel and suppress all those who dissent.
Surely you haven't thought this through. Do you really want the entirety of your life to be a criminal trial where a panel of judges (or citizens) determine what you ought to think and feel?
Re: Letters from House members to cable providers [pdf]
#304It's political theater, but is still relevant and noteworthy as this kind of action pierces through the "but this isn't about the 1st Amendment because they're private companies and can de-platform anyone". Once FB, Twitter, or a cable company start censoring due to government pressure, then 1st amendment arguments are indeed applicable.
Re: Letters from House members to cable providers [pdf]
#305Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
The problem with your calling this example out, is that people will believe this stuff if down the rabbit hole enough.
Jan 20th Biden and Harris were supposed to be arrested and their pedo evidence was suppose to be shown to all, along with evidence of election fraud.
The next one is what March 7th?
A lot of people think an ancient all powerful being will re-appear and lift up adherents on high, and punish "bad" non believers.
Re: Letters from House members to cable providers [pdf]
#306Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
> It is easy to write a fake story, but it is not easy to have lots of people believe your fake story.
I thought so too before Pizzagate, Q-Anon....
Re: Letters from House members to cable providers [pdf]
#307Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Jade Sacker doesn't work for CNN. https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-woman-capitol-n... Feels like you are just getting played and then propagating your problems further here.
https://www.jadesacker.com/about
Her client list includes CNN, NBC, etc.
Yes, she's an independent photographer who is often under contract with CNN, NBC, etc. Not clear if she was at the time, tbh.
That wasn't exactly my only point, the way the industry works -- CNN, NBC, etc buy content from people who go into dangerous situations. So these people are in-effect the "journalists". In her case, I don't know if she was credentialed or not, but given her lack of arrest (as far as we can tell), she likely was.
Re: Letters from House members to cable providers [pdf]
#308I think they would do better to solve the business model at the genesis of the issue. The Attention economy brought the conspiracy and outrage machine to each of our phones. There's an addict in my pocket. We need the political willpower to say "Yea you are a rich money making company, but a harm for X, Y reasons, and therefore this is the new regulation for companies profiting on an attention based model." There wil…
> The Attention economy brought the conspiracy and outrage machine to each of our phones.
Speaking of, just take a look around the responses to this very submission
Re: Letters from House members to cable providers [pdf]
#309Earlier quoted context omitted.
New York Times employees are employed at-will. We're not talking about minimum wage workers publishing content under duress here, we're talking about journalists and editors who generally join organizations they believe in. Tucker Carlson doesn't go on air and say the things he says because he's forced to, he does it because he wants to. Full disclosure: my wife works for the New York Times.
So your wife never complains that work is pushing her to do something that she does not want to do, and she's bargaining with management to try to do the right thing? And the transaction costs to her quitting and finding a new job are zero? IMO "at will" is only 99% correct, and the integral of its remainder builds up into some gross misbehavior.
My wife has never been forced to publish anything against her will. That being said, she has disagreed with the editorial decisions of the paper on a number of occasions. This is not at odds with the freedom of association; every single organization is comprised of individuals that don't always agree with one another, but work together to overcome their disagreements. Nowhere has there ever been a guarantee that the freedom of association presupposes that every individual has the freedom to confer the exact same set of opinions to everyone in their association. Importantly, my wife doesn't feel like she's entitled to the power to censure other journalists or employees in her company. I know that I don't have the power to do that in my own company, nor should I.
There's disagreement within every group, that doesn't render the concept of free association invalid. The Catholic Church has its disagreements, but that doesn't mean that they lose the freedom to congregate because they're somehow no longer a bona fide association on account of that internal disagreement. The Democratic Party has its disagreements (heaven knows), the Republican Party is essentially at war with itself, the Libertarian Party can never agree on what it stands for because it's a motley crew of weirdos. None of this matters, they are all protected by the First Amendment, as associations. Whether they are traded on the NYSE, or they are 501(c)4 non-profit corporations, or they are just an amateur club, they are protected by the same First Amendment, and are subject to the same narrow limits on speech established by Brandenburg v Ohio (and all other relevant precedents).
Obviously the transaction cost to quitting and finding a new job is not zero; the Constitution's protection of the freedom of association has no guarantees on what the transaction cost to associate are. Just like free speech, you're free to say whatever you want, but you're not entitled to a free platform; promulgating speech costs money. You're free to keep and bear arms, but you're not entitled to a free rifle; guns cost money.
Associations are more than capable of gross misbehavior; but in manners related specifically to the publishing of speech and expression, they enjoy outsized protection, at least in the United States.
Re: Letters from House members to cable providers [pdf]
#310Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
> Scientific consensus also not arrived at by publishing literally every crackpot idea, and answering each with "more discussion." Science has several mechanisms for "censoring" bullshit and misinformation (e.g. peer review), and it couldn't function without it. What counts as a "crackpot idea?" We don't have to dabble in hypotheticals about JFK eating babies. We have real examples from current political events that…
> The issue is actually pretty uncertain, and government bodies are making categorical statements for political reasons
I think it's more complicated than just politics, as I was saying elsewhere (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26139732), public health officials advised against mask-wearing for general public initially for a very particular reason (possible shortages for medical frontline workers). As far as public healthy policy is concerned, where you cannot pass a certain threshold of complexity in communicating best practices to grandmas around the nation, masks work is a good enough message and it stands on pretty solid science: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.31.20166116v...