Live data from Hacker News

Letters from House members to cable providers [pdf]

eshoo.house.gov

431–440 of 602 posts

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

#431
post #421
post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Then don’t have them. Having lie checkers on the internet is a moronic idea. This rule is to stop organized coordinated disinformation campaigns. It’s to take down sites who’s whole purpose is to literally make up news stories, present them as fact, and spread them on social media.

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

#432

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.

It absolutely does not do any such thing. Speech can be well-regulated, just like other constitutional rights. Your right to speak does not mandate a megaphone.

What I described was the law from the 1930s until the 1980s. Our predecessors saw what happened in fascist and communist states and wisely took measures to avoid that.

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

#433
post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

There is always the option to let the issue sort itself out. To allow space and time for a solution to emerge.

We should be careful not to fall into action bias. E.g. the thought that we need to do something, anything, since that can lead to counterproductive solutions.

I've begun to look at information problems like this not too differently than viruses of thought. Right now these viruses are running rampant because we've never had to deal with anything like them before on such a wide scale. It seems perfectly possible to me that over time we will develop social standards that immunize us from these viruses. More and more people will begin to disregard clickbait, outrage-inducing headlines, etc. They will simply become less salient the more and more we experience them.

Reframing the question at hand around this metaphor: What would an effective vaccine look like for these thought viruses? I'm not at all sure, but I can't imagine any kind of partisan response that would work, since these viruses infect left and right alike, and many people will bend over backwards to argue otherwise. Until we can face that fact honestly, I don't see how we could even begin to have a productive conversation about a solution.

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

#434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me, a good start would be to provide evidence that people have had their minds changed because information gets discussed more. E.g. you could demonstrate that the qanon phenomenon became less popular, not more, after it began getting wide media attention. (Unfortunately in this instance the opposite is the case. You have an uphill battle ahead trying to demonstrate your position empirically.)

Q is a really interesting conspiracy theory to bring up. It seems to be at the other end of the "valley" of conspiracy theories - it's almost like the most brazenly unbelievable ones are the ones that somehow gain the most traction.

It combined several long running conspiracy theories into one. Because they had been around for so long individually, combining them somehow made them more believable. Connecting seemingly disparate dots together added credibility because it explained everything conspiracy theorists believed.

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

#435
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…

"That’s what they need to address, picking and choosing opinions to block is a fig leaf move that’s more likely to backfire than improve anything."

Counter point - before social media that is exactly how it worked for the last 100 years. Newspapers, radio stations and tv stations were picking and choosing opinions to block.

This entire problem is actually being caused by the total removal of editorial discretion from sane people.

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

#436
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…

> Incorrectly yelling Fire in a crowded theater is illegal No it's not. See Brandenburg v. Ohio.

It was made more specific in Brandenburg v. Ohio but it was not overturned. ie, if someone is falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater which is "speech brigaded with action" then it is a situation where a person could be prosecuted for speech. They used that very example.

Edit:

People can read it themselves: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/395/444

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

Fire in a crowded theater is specifically mentioned as the sort of case in which a person could be prosecuted for speech.

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

#437
post #383
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.

I don't watch MSNBC (or any TV news for that matter), but I'm curious how their reporting has changed since Biden was sworn in. It's easier to report facts that 'speak truth to power' when your bias is opposed to who currently holds power.

Biden has delayed, compromised on, or walked back nearly every campaign promise he made. Has MSNBC been calling out these discrepancies between campaign rhetoric and implementation? I would be surprised if they were making substantive criticism of the Biden administration.

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

#438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It basically doesn’t matter if you get the other side to listen or not. Open and free discussion is out there for those who want to partake. There will always be zealots who choose not to. Censoring opposition in order to be heard more loudly doesn’t work. In an IRL discussion, if you start talking over someone forcing them to stop talking, they’re going to shut down and never listen to anything you have to say.

It matters very much when that other side has the control of your government.

Luckily that changes every 4 or 8 years.

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

#439
post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Last time I checked no court of law had convicted the former President of any criminal offense. So, no, I don’t see how that logic was used to censor him.

Same for false cures to diseases, nobody imprisons pseudoscience witch doctors for recommending vitamins to cure cancer. (Maybe if they claimed to be a medical doctor?) If that were so, I know of a half dozen people in Boulder that would’ve been in jail by now. Certainly no court had convicted any of these people of a crime prior to censorship.

So, as far as I can tell, these people had been censored without having committed (or at least convicted of) a crime.

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

#440
post #431
post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Then don’t have them. Having lie checkers on the internet is a moronic idea. This rule is to stop organized coordinated disinformation campaigns. It’s to take down sites who’s whole purpose is to literally make up news stories, present them as fact, and spread them on social media.

It was mean sarcastic. In case you haven't figured out how awful the fact-checkers are.

An no, if you ban "disinformation" you ban free speech. There is no way to figure out if a flat earther publishes something for disinformation purpose or if he really believes what he writes. Disinformation is best frighted by debunking it, not by removing it. Most people have heard form the flat earth but most dont believe it. Because they can inform themself. That's how it should be. No need to "save" everyone trough authoritarian measures. The risk here is way higher than having to deal with some forever flat earther.

Post reply on HN