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

441–450 of 602 posts

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

#441

Post by [deleted] »

garg wrote: post #424
dnissley wrote: post #410

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.

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 fi…

[deleted]

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

#442

Post by gizmondo »

Spivak wrote: post #425
avesi wrote: 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?

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 yo…

Unless you have a mind-reading device, there is no way to be sure what somebody believes.

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

#443

Post by Retric »

dnissley wrote: post #433
Retric wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

So in other words no, but you don’t think it’s a long term problem?

I honestly think your fath in humanity is refreshing. Personally, I think this is just reversion to the mean where simply lying was historically the most common response.

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

#444

Post by FireBeyond »

nyczomg wrote: post #331
FireBeyond wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a long conclusion to make. The statement that it had not been determined that blunt force trauma specifically caused Officer Sicknick's death doesn't make the attack BS - there's video footage of him being hit with one. And dying within 24 hours from a hemorrhagic stroke is definitely not enough to rule out the proximal impact of fire extinguishers and other implements used to beat him.

"there's video footage of him being hit with one." You should forward that video footage to law enforcement right away, because they don't even have it. I'll even cite CNN, because I assume you believe they are trustworthy. https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/02/politics/brian-sicknick-charg... "Investigators are struggling to build a federal murder case regarding fallen US Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick, vexed by a l…

Oh, comprehension.

> evidence that could prove someone caused his death

> have yet to identify a moment in which he suffered his fatal injuries

Neither of these things say "he did not die as a result of injuries sustained in the riots".

> "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."

No, the ME, who is yet to release finalized verdict, stated that the officer did not die "from blunt force trauma".

> that he was fatally struck by a fire extinguisher

Well no. He wasn't. He died the next day in hospital.

From a hemorrhagic stroke. Which could have been caused or exacerbated by non-lethal beating.

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

#445

Post by duck »

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.

One important question related to this is if a news org doesn't cover a valid story? Is that lying by omission? Probably not, but from an audience standpoint is there really a difference?

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

#446

Post by rayiner »

Retric wrote: post #443
dnissley wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

So in other words no, but you don’t think it’s a long term problem? I honestly think your fath in humanity is refreshing. Personally, I think this is just reversion to the mean where simply lying was historically the most common response.

> I honestly think your fath in humanity is refreshing. Personally, I think this is just reversion to the mean where simply lying was historically the most common response.

Its your faith in humanity that's "refreshing" if you think giving the people with the guns the power to police speech is the proper solution.

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

#447

Post by tiahura »

Spooky23 wrote: post #432
PixyMisa wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'd like a cite for Speech can be well-regulated.

First Ammendment caselaw is a little muddled, however, content regulation falls between strict scrutiny and per se invalid depending on which way the wind is blowing. See eg. Simon & Shuster v. NY (invalidating Son of Sam law). See also, RAV (invalidating hate speech law).

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

#448

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#449

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#450

Post by trav4225 »

kube-system wrote: post #401
_-david-_ wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Silicon Valley has been taken over by Methodists!!! ;-)
Post reply on HN