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

401–410 of 602 posts

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

#401

Post by kube-system »

_-david-_ wrote: post #397
kube-system wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Since the fringe people were on Facebook, Twitter and YouTube it seems like we should be banning them not Parler.

Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are a clear example of the latter group in my previous comment.

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

#402

Post by drak0n1c »

e40 wrote: post #383
cwkoss wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

MSNBC has a history of misinformation contributing to the highly polarized environment today.

Here is a video showing how MSNBC purposefully cropped footage of an armed protester at an Obama townhall to hide his race (he was black), and used the clip to immediately launch into a discussion claiming that town hall protesters were motivated by racism. Soon after that media cycle my peers in college started assuming that most criticism of Obama is motivated by racism. These kinds of attitudes directly contributed to the current culture war of bad faith ostracism and tribalism.

https://youtu.be/fvBQDHqdCck?t=130

Remember, a left wing activist also took violent action and shot up Congressmen at a baseball field. The argument of a "sufficient level" of misinformation and/or butterfly-effect-violence can be used to justify arbitrary intimidation and censorship against any outlet.

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

#403

Post by avesi »

Spivak wrote: post #388
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…

Who determines what is true and what's a lie? Why do you trust them to make the right call?

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

#404

Post by garg »

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…

The violent attack on the capitol was the result of fake news media without anyone ever inciting violence. They simply need to repeat over and over that the election was stolen and that caused the violence and people died.

Incorrectly yelling Fire in a crowded theater is illegal and no one is inciting violence in that situation either. There are many commonalities between broadcasting fake news for profit and propaganda, and incorrectly yelling fire in a crowd. Both end up resulting in public safety hazards.

It is a difficult problem to deal with because there is always the possibility of corruption and a reduction in genuine free speech when there is regulation involved. But it is a problem that has to be solved.

It is also no longer social media only, it is Fox, OANN, NewsMax, Sinclair, etc that are increasingly filling up air time with lies solely to make a buck.

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

#405

Post by Spooky23 »

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…

Take the politics out of it — unaccountable, unquestioned mass communication is almost always bad.

Mass media needs the fairness doctrine back to take the carnival show out of the news. Social media is no exception.

The current model basically neuters editorial discretion and creates a “Team A” vs “Team B” environment that is bad for everyone. These problems started in niche mediums like talk radio and eventually locked in because it’s an easy way to make money. The problem is it’s a race to the bottom, and outlets like OANN, RT, etc are really self-sustaining propaganda outlets. The NY Post has an editorial voice but their news product isn’t fiction.

On the internet, if you give Facebook, Google, etc rules, they will develop algorithms to comply. IMO, regulation in the space would improve the quality of engagement and make them money. P&G won’t buy ads associated with flat earth people, and they pay more than the gold coin, prostate pills, crazy pillow people, etc.

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

#406

Post by jimbokun »

ntsplnkv2 wrote: post #208
maerF0x0 wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

~75 million people voted for Donald Trump - it is hardly socially unacceptable to vote for a republican and you have a secret vote anyway.

For the most part, it is socially unacceptable to vote Republican if you live in a large US city, and it is socially unacceptable to vote Democrat if you live in a rural area.

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

#407

Post by bzbarsky »

asterialite wrote: post #149
macspoofing wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I imagine we all agree that disinformation should be curbed Who decides what is 'disinformation' or 'misinformation'? You? The Democratic representatives? Jack Dorsey? No thanks. I think I'd like to make up my own mind. Your politics also shine through your comment which also betrays your biases. Free speech is hard when it's speech you don't like and used by your political opponents .. isn't it.

> Who decides what is 'disinformation' or 'misinformation'? You? The Democratic representatives? Jack Dorsey? No thanks. You are restating what I said almost word for word — but still disagreeing. Somehow. Everyone probably agrees that disinformation must be curbed; not everyone agrees on what exactly disinformation is. You seem to think I'm biased against Republicans. This is the case. You seem to be biased against…

Not everyone agrees that disinformation should be curbed. And the reason many people, including the authors of the US Constitution, don't agree, is that they feel the risk of false positives is far too high.

That is _because_ I have no confidence that anyone doing the curbing, including myself, will correctly identify "misinformation", I don't want such curbing to be happening, period.

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

#408

Post by rayiner »

e40 wrote: post #383
cwkoss wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

It’s not a scaler. There is the overt-ness of the lie, as well as the significance of the lie. Fox gives air to some significant and bald-faced lies. MSNBC gives air to a lot of misconceptions that are monumental in scope but less bald-faced. On the flip side, the journalism side of Fox stood up to the bald-faced lie about the election. Nobody at MSNBC never stands up to the less bald-faced misconceptions aired on that network.

With respect to elections. Trump made up a big lie about one election that Fox’s news side pushed back on, and which some opinion commenters face air too. MSNBC has given air to less bold lies about election integrity ever since 2000. How many people know from watching left-leaning media that 7 of 9 justices, with two Democrats agreeing with five Republicans, thought the Florida recount was unconstitutional?

In other examples, look at COVID response. Do you think people watching CNN have an accurate idea of where US COVID deaths stands in comparison to similar countries?

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

#409

Post by Alupis »

jodrellblank wrote: post #378
Alupis wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You see the issue here then, right? Government cannot limit your Free Speech, for the reason I (and you) pointed out. So... short of any alternative tools, the Government sets out to intimidate private companies into censoring on the Government's behalf. What more... it's not "The Government" - it's a political party that happens to be in power right now and is seeking to censor the other political party through mean…

You're deliberately mixing "Twitter bans me" with "Government imprisons me" and pretending they are the same thing so you can describe it as " private companies are allowed to limit free speech don't you see! " which is a misleading and incorrect description. You said " When these CEO's enact new policies that censors "Right-Think", it'll be totally okay because it's not the Government limiting Free Speech - private…

You seem to be stuffing a lot of straw men into your response. That, or you think I'm making an argument that I have yet to write.

I have no idea where Twitter came into all this, nor does it matter what people in other countries consider "Free Speech" or not.

> The Government absolutely /can/ limit your Free Speech, that's why it's important and scary - of all organizations which exist only the Government can make it illegal for you to publish a book or imprison you for writing a critical newspaper article.

Perhaps you are not familiar with the US Constitution and the US Government (we often forget HN is an international community) - but no, the Government here cannot make it illegal to publish a book or imprison you for writing a critical newspaper article.

No, the US Government (local, state, federal) cannot put you in prison for voicing opinions, no matter how unpopular they may be.

Yes, private organization can deplatform, censor, and silence any opinions they disagree with.

What we clearly have here is a case of a political party, in control of Congress, seeking a way to circumvent the US Constitution (specifically the 1st Amendment) by nakedly intimidating private organizations into enacting censorship on their behalf, to be perpetrated against said political party's political enemies.

That is flatly wrong, and should be viewed as Government attempting to censor political enemies... because that is what it is!

Straw Men be damned...

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

#410

Post by dnissley »

garg wrote: post #404
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…

The violent attack on the capitol was the result of fake news media without anyone ever inciting violence. They simply need to repeat over and over that the election was stolen and that caused the violence and people died. Incorrectly yelling Fire in a crowded theater is illegal and no one is inciting violence in that situation either. There are many commonalities between broadcasting fake news for profit and propaga…

> But it is a problem that has to be solved.

Do you think the solution should come from the government? It seems implied here but just checking.

Post reply on HN