Letters from House members to cable providers [pdf] • Hacker News Board

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

#411

Post by rayiner » Tue, Feb 23, 2021, 10:29 PM UTC

scythe wrote: post #201

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…

>The letter complains about Fox and OANN's partisan and inflammatory rhetoric, >they suggest censoring Fox News, which accurately reported the election results and Supreme Court developments. The conspiracy theories, such as they were, came from some of the opinion hosts. It's hard to believe we're at this point, but Fox is on a different level from OANN. You can find counterpoints on Fox News. OANN/Breitbart/the Mer…

What’s wrong with posing with rifles in response to a President that’s making noise about gun control?

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

#412

Post by dnissley » Tue, Feb 23, 2021, 10:33 PM UTC

avesi wrote: post #403

Spivak wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Precisely -- and let's be clear here: the disinformation being discussed here breaks down along partisan lines.

We can barely get republicans and democrats to agree on a budget, what makes anyone think that they could reasonably come to an agreement on objective standards of truth in media? Let alone a process by which those standards are enforced? This is way, wayyyyy outside the realm of reality.

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

#413

Post by mnouquet » Tue, Feb 23, 2021, 10:34 PM UTC

jolux wrote: post #276

mnouquet wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes it is, but obviously, you only taking these questions at face value.

I can only read what words you put on the page, I'm not a mind reader.

You must have issues interacting with people IRL...

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

#414

Post by jodrellblank » Tue, Feb 23, 2021, 10:34 PM UTC

LanceH wrote: post #398

jodrellblank wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Twitter banning an account at the behest of the government is absolutely censorship. Sure Twitter is free to ban me. But Twitter is free to allow me to speak without retribution from the government. The government has no business threatening companies to silence people.

Trying to head off this response is why I added "(the same kind of / as bad) censorship". The government has no business threatening companies to silence people, but if they do threaten companies to silence people that's not the same as arresting you for criticising the government, it's not the same thing as limiting Free Speech(tm). Twitter is free to allow you to speak without retribution from the government, but compelling Twitter to let you speak, to provide you a service you aren't paying for, is another matter again.

Where the lines fall on that is up for debate, in arguments about whether large enough sites are like public services, or should be public services, whether websites are blind conduits for information or responsible for the content on them, and the fact that all that is being argued is evidence that it hasn't been settled in a dystopian way.

If I threw $10 to ICQ to delete your account that you haven't used in a decade, you could still argue "censorship! you have no business doing that!" and be correct, but any point about it being a limit on your free speech would be much much more obviously weak.

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

#415

Post by noxer » Tue, Feb 23, 2021, 10:34 PM UTC

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…

Even if there would be a simple way to define "lying" in this context and a simple 100% effective way to proof it. It would only shift the problem not solve it. You can already "lie" under oath if you formulate something as opinion if there is nothing that contradicts your statement, its that simple. If people can be sentenced for the writing words online if they intentionally lied that just puts a target on normal people an make professional writers team up with lawyers to avoid ever writing anything that could be deemed a lie. That solve no problem at all. People find a way to tell you that the earth is flat anyway. Putting wrong speaking closer to wrongdoings is a very dangerous idea in general. we should want more speak not less and we get that if speech is tolerated.

The "inciting violence" thing is already very very close to breaking the concept of free speech. And it can also be defeated simply by linguistic tricks. "Kill the ...." would incite violence but "I think we should kill the ..." expresses an opinion. Also this very example here used the same words as something that in fact could incites violence but clearly my post isn't. Now do we really want an AI to detect de difference? Or maybe real human? Moderators who are almost certainly not qualified to judge because a content moderator isn't a judge and should not be.

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

#416

Post by Retric » Tue, Feb 23, 2021, 10:35 PM UTC

dnissley wrote: post #410

garg wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Do you have any other options? I don’t care who solves it, but when a company is run for the intent to produce propaganda it’s pointless to ask them to self regulate.

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

#417

Post by slowmovintarget » Tue, Feb 23, 2021, 10:35 PM UTC

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…

The violent attack on the capitol was the result of the sitting President of the United States claiming the election was stolen and telling them to march on the capitol.

That is decidedly not a social media thing.

Social media gave him the mob, but it was a man with a podium that incited the action.

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

#418

Post by PixyMisa » Tue, Feb 23, 2021, 10:37 PM UTC

Spooky23 wrote: post #405

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 loc…

The First Amendment forbids any such legislation.

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

#419

Post by thrwaway2day » Tue, Feb 23, 2021, 10:38 PM UTC

slowmovintarget wrote: post #417

garg wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The violent attack on the capitol was the result of the sitting President of the United States claiming the election was stolen and telling them to march on the capitol. That is decidedly not a social media thing. Social media gave him the mob, but it was a man with a podium that incited the action.

> The violent attack on the capitol was the result of the sitting President of the United States claiming the election was stolen and telling them to march on the capitol.

If true, this would be much more convincing with a direct quotation and a source, rather than your interpretation.

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

#420

Post by avesi » Tue, Feb 23, 2021, 10:38 PM UTC

r00fus wrote: post #336

jaywalk wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Do you have a cite for the Obama reference? Quick google search says it's BS. Whereas Trump did recently threaten a reporter with jail time.

Michael Hastings mysteriously exploded during the Obama Administration, maybe that's what they're referring to.