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

421–430 of 602 posts

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

#421

Post by noxer »

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?

Yes, the "fact-checkers" we already have should give us a hint at what "lie-checkers" would do.

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

#422

Post by PixyMisa »

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…

> Incorrectly yelling Fire in a crowded theater is illegal

No it's not. See Brandenburg v. Ohio.

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

#423

Post by commandlinefan »

PixyMisa wrote: post #418
Spooky23 wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And thank god for it.

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

#424

Post by garg »

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.

In my previous comment, I am roughly equating incorrectly yelling fire in a crowded theater with broadcasting fake news to millions of people.

If there were a way to clearly differentiate between free speech and fake news, then yes, I would support legal ramifications for spreading blatant intentional fake news created solely as profitable propaganda that causes harm, and treating that as intentionally lying about fire in a crowd.

I don't know what the best organization or process for setting that up would be. After a certain number of complaints, can we transparently look into the owners of the news media, their revenue streams, their involvement with foreign governments, to determine whether a company is a legitimate news source or not? Can we get non-profits and media-freedom watchdogs involved to ensure fairness? Can we get the fairness doctrine running again? I don't see why not.

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

#425

Post by Spivak »

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?

Wait no. That’s not how this works. There’s no determination of fact. It doesn’t matter whether what you said is true or false — this isn’t a rule against being wrong. It’s a rule against someone speaking something they know and believe a priori to be false with the intent to mislead people.

Like it’s literally the same ideas as fraud but applied to misinformation. If you believe that climate change is a hoax then you’re fine, tell the world. But if you make up a study and data “disproving” climate change and then circulate it in Facebook then you’re not.

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

#426

Post by slowmovintarget »

thrwaway2day wrote: post #419
slowmovintarget wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-resolutio...

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

#427

Post by bhupy »

mindslight wrote: post #399
bhupy wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You keep asserting that organizations are no different from individuals, while completely ignoring every way I've pointed out how organizations differ from individuals. I'm asserting that organizations are no different from individuals in the eyes of the law . That's what we're talking about here. The law explicitly protects the freedom to associate, and has no point of view on what the size of a valid association…

> If you go back and read my comments, I've not once made any prescriptions of what is "desirable" or what "should" be; I am strictly making descriptive statements about what currently "is" When talking about ideals and values, the wider context is what should be . Explaining the current law and its current application is straightforward, and isn't particularly worthwhile without a larger point. I don't see where you…

> which means that you're advocating for the status quo

I’m actually not advocating for anything. I'm using this conversation to understand what you're advocating for so that I can form my own opinion about what I should believe.

Looking back at this conversation, you said "I agree that we don't actually have a free press". It's clear from this conversation that you understand that in the status quo, we actually do have a free press, it's just that you find the implications of that to be undesirable; and you've made your best case for why that is.

My goal is to get you to be up front about the ramifications of your own proposal by admitting on the public record that you don't think that we ought to have a "free press". That helps me not only understand the implications of your proposal but also establish that you actually do believe in what you're advocating for despite the implications (the honesty is refreshing). It also allows me to understand what it really means to deviate from the status quo. In that regard, this was an illuminating exchange.

To the extent that I'm advocating for anything, it's that if you want to make any fundamental changes to the nature of press freedom in the US, the best way to do that is via the Constitutional Amendment process, and not by Legislative bullying. Even if one were to agree with the ends for which you are advocating (not saying that I do), I definitely disagree with the current means of achieving them.

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

#428

Post by jjeaff »

leesalminen wrote: post #167
jefft255 wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I understand correctly, you're claiming that we __must not__ censor child pornography? Isn't prosecution a form of censorship anyways? I think what you're saying is a textbook example of a slippery slope fallacy.

Following the law is a slippery slope? I’m pretty sure the parent is saying that because child pornography is explicitly illegal, it can (and should) be censored.

I believe this is the same logic being used to sensor covid deniers, false cures, and fraudulent election crackpots like our last president.

The latter type of lie incites people to insurrection and riles up violence, the other two cause people to do things that may kill themselves or others.

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

#429

Post by ihsw »

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."

Reconciliation among people is usually governed by the reframing of sacred issues, eg:

> Scientific advancement is an effort to grow closer to God as God created an infinitely complex universe, it is not an effort to grow further away from God. Additionally, hard work is a sign of having the grace of God, and as such vaccinations are provided by the grace of God and it is our duty to receive them.

It doesn't take much to meet people halfway and communicate in a language that they understand, and naturally that will involve cooperation, dialogue, and compromise.

"Get the other side to listen" is the wrong point of view to have, it should be "which of my ideas are appealing and which are not."

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

#430

Post by [deleted] »

shakezula wrote: post #373
s1artibartfast wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree to disagree, vote on it, and sometimes loose. Part of being in a democracy is that sometimes you dont get what you want, even when you are sure you are right. Change can be slow, even for good ideas. If you have faith in humanity and democracy, then you believe good ideas will prevail in the end. There were US abolitionists in 1770 and the civil rights movement ended in 1970.

And when the problems require solutions in decades and not centuries to be agreed on? What then? I used to have a lot more faith in our democracy but I can't help but feel lately like something has fundamentally changed, and the system is just catching up to that. What changed? I have no idea, but something feels _different_ from before.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN