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

381–390 of 602 posts

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

#381

Post by cassalian »

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…

So you'd like to make lying illegal...? I have an amendment to show you, it's actually the very first one!

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

#382

Post by dang »

tgflynn wrote: post #300

As far as I can tell these letters were signed by only 2 members of Congress. As such the title "Letters from House Democrats" seems misleading. That title suggests to me that some substantially representative fraction of the House Democratic delegation is behind these letters. That does not appear to be the case.

Ok, we've tweaked the wording to address that. Thanks!

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

#383

Post by e40 »

cwkoss wrote: post #186
rayiner wrote: post #37

The letter complains about Fox and OANN's partisan and inflammatory rhetoric, with supporting citations to sources on the left who trade heavily in partisan and inflammatory rhetoric. Just three citations in you get to Karen Attiah, Washington Post's Global Opinions Editor: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jun/29/karen-attia... > “White women are lucky that we are just calling them ‘Karen’s,’ and not calling…

MSNBC is just as partisan and loose with the truth as fox news, but with a centrist liberal perspective. CNN seems slightly better, but they have a lot of questionable reporting and analysis as well.

I think the magnitude of the lies on the Fox side is far larger than those on the CNBC side.

Magnitude matters in this case and painting them with "both sides" arguments is a huge disservice.

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

#384

Post by dnissley »

dragonwriter wrote: post #380
simonh wrote: post #371

I’m deeply concerned about disinformation, it’s a major problem. Politics has always had spin, and many issues are complex and it can be easy to state things too emphatically to press your case. Accusations of lying are everyday in politics. But recently flat out knowingly lying with the specific intent of deceiving people has become normalised. It’s a serious threat. This is precisely the wrong way to tackle it thou…

> This is precisely the wrong way to tackle it though. We cannot ever allow government to control what can or cannot be said Can you please point me to a proposal for government to control what can or cannot be said? Not a speculation about what might , in the future, be proposed based on what some people fear based on the questions in these letters, but an actual concrete proposal? Otherwise, I don't see how “This i…

Are you not able to see the implicit threat in this letter?

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

#385

Post by kube-system »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #334
notional wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

We just want people to admit that the reason was a lie

This is a silly conclusion.

If a gang member and a methodist get into a bar fight, do you think the fair thing is for the bar to ban both gang members and methodists?

No -- it is entirely reasonable to treat fringe groups that foster fringe ideas differently than large diverse groups.

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

#386

Post by retromario »

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…

> None of those deaths were linked back to the Capital building in a meaningful way (including the officer).

That is simply false.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/police-of...

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

#387

Post by hpcjoe »

pfortuny wrote: post #144
hpcjoe wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know I'll be downvoted for this, but fundamentally this definition[1] includes "and forcible suppression of opposition". In what way is this letter not the first step in this direction? I'm no fan of the previous president. Really didn't like him. But this ... this attempt at shutting down of opposition communication, is the hallmark, the signature of nascent oppression. And a slide into fascism/socialism/etc. [1]…

Saying that you will be downvoted guarantees it. You are right but it is best not to mention the beast, in my opinion.

Until we confront this, without fabricating fever swamp fiction to frighten captive tribal masses, we are going to be stuck in this dystopia. Teetering on the edge of {fasc,Democratic|National social}ism who all seek to control the narrative and suppress dissent.

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

#388

Post by Spivak »

simonh wrote: post #371

I’m deeply concerned about disinformation, it’s a major problem. Politics has always had spin, and many issues are complex and it can be easy to state things too emphatically to press your case. Accusations of lying are everyday in politics. But recently flat out knowingly lying with the specific intent of deceiving people has become normalised. It’s a serious threat. This is precisely the wrong way to tackle it thou…

> outside narrow limits such as incitement to violence

Why can’t those narrow limits include “flat out knowingly lying with the specific intent of deceiving people?” Sure it’s a very human definition but it’s one with built-in limits on its scope. You can’t use it to ban wrongthink because it has to be from people who know that they’re lying.

> turning people’s feeds into an ever more extreme echo chamber

So yes but also this is done voluntarily. Those algorithms are keying on to the fact that I do not want specific kinds of content. If given the option I’ll even explicitly make my preferences known — I’ve blocked probably a thousand subreddits just to make my /r/all tolerable; Twitter is only usable if you confine yourself to niches. It’s #general or barrens chat that’s the cesspool of nonstop screaming.

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

#389

Post by [deleted] »

phkahler wrote: post #101
garg wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The government should be regulating the broadcast of false information that is blatant propaganda. Freedom of speech is not freedom to broadcast blatant lies to millions of people.

In that case, all the media would be shut down.

[deleted]

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

#390

Post by Clubber »

katmannthree wrote: post #291
Clubber wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference between someone dying because of a stroke and someone dying because they were bludgeoned to death with a blunt object over the course of several minutes while thousands of people stood idly by is stark.

Getting bludgeoned can cause strokes, among various other more and less pressing medical issues. It's still murder when the victim dies in the hospital instead of at the scene.

Yes this is true, but apparently he wasn't actually bludgeoned with anything although it was widely reported that he was. The current theory is chemical agents had something to do with it (like pepper or bear spray).

https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/02/politics/brian-sicknick-charg...

>According to one law enforcement official, medical examiners did not find signs that the officer sustained any blunt force trauma, so investigators believe that early reports that he was fatally struck by a fire extinguisher are not true.

Post reply on HN