451–460 of 602 posts
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Though I will admit debate rules where each side gets equal time back to back to be somewhat humorous. That’s mostly my love of chaos and the spectacle of such an idea.
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…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine ("The fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented.").
I would love to see MSNBC airing opposing viewpoints on controversial issues. They could have someone on to explain that Obama was putting undocumented immigrant children in cages, defend Hobby Lobby, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
https://www.mediaite.com/news/what-ever-happened-to-daniel-d...
Since joining CNN in June of 2019, Dale has appeared or been mentioned on the network more than once every other day on average, according to the Internet Archive.
That exposure dropped sharply after November 4, and according to the TV Eyes media monitoring database, since President Joe Biden’s inauguration on January 20, Dale has only appeared on the network once. And that appearance, last Friday, was to fact-check Donald Trump’s lawyers.
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's not about free speech, it's about what's broadcast over public airwaves.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 h…
No, the status quo is to assert that we have a free press, as a tenet of our national beliefs. But looking at the actual governance of the US, much of the power structure resides outside of the de jure government. And that de facto government owns or supports most of the press.
> My goal is to get you to be up front about the ramifications of your own proposal
I've proposed nothing. I'm disputing assertions that backstop the status quo, chiefly that corporations should be viewed as plain groups of regular individuals coming together by voluntary association.
Regarding speech, a straightforward proposal one could create from this is that corporations' speech would be regulated as a condition of their government-approved incorporation (and groups of individuals would be free to avoid this by not incorporating). But I'm not proposing this, because I think the motivation behind this problem-narrative is mostly power coalescing, and an inevitable reaction to the fracturing of institutional authority.
Rather I'm making the general argument to point out that the interests of individuals are distinct from this battle of corporate versus government power - both "sides" are steamrollers to individually held rights. My own favored proposal is to move to Free p2p comms and leave both arms of the incumbent structure in the dust.
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…
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 i…
> "No, the US Government (local, state, federal) cannot put you in prison for voicing opinions, no matter how unpopular they may be.
I think you are trying to make the point that the US Constitution says the Government may not do that. I am trying to make the point that the Government has the power to do that, and is the only organization with the power to do that, and that they actually do do that in certain circumstances - e.g. https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/us-teenage-isis-supporter-sentence... - imprisoned for running a pro-ISIS Twitter account. Given that the Government has the power to imprison you where private organizations don't, and that the Government will do so for certain (e.g. pro-terrorism) speeches now, it is important to make the distinction that a Congressperson asking AT&T if they intend to carry Fox News in future is different to the Government arresting a Fox News journalist, CEO, or AT&T CEO, and that the difference is large.
> "Yes, private organization can deplatform, censor, and silence any opinions they disagree with."
Yes they can, I haven't denied it. What I have said is that you can use your freedoms to start new private organizations where you can post opinions you agree with and silence opinions you disagree with, or walk about with a billboard in the town square. You have the right to speak, you don't have the right to a large audience on a popular platform. That's why private organizations deplatforming you is different even if the Government is leaning (which I don't agree they are), and the difference matters.
> "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."
No we don't clearly have that. We clearly have a couple (two) members of Congress sending a form letter to a dozen media companies asking 7 fairly trivial questions. If you're going to claim "nakedly intimidating" please point out the intimidating wording in the letter. Since there isn't any, you can't, so I predict you're not going to respond to this bit in good faith either.
> "That is flatly wrong, and should be viewed as Government attempting to censor political enemies... because that is what it is!"
I am not going to copy-paste the entire letter here, but following up on an event which happened by writing a letter asking if Roku did anything to support or stop carrying media about the event, is not flatly wrong, it's a normal and expected kind of investigation. It seems very likely that the media companies in question will send back lawerly responses saying "we do not filter content, we have a fair use policy, we were monitoring events and took (some/no) actions" and that will be all that comes of it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That isn't a problem unless you're discussing something where anonymity is key - or it wouldn't be if the internet didn't make anonymity the rule by default. Anonymity is really great for private citizens, but people trying to spread information need to be held to a higher standard since their words shouldn't be preemptively censored but must be held to account after the fact. Oh also, taking away anonymity is quite…
I'm not sure I'm convinced that taking away anonymity fixes the problem. We have very prominent politicians who are driving entire political campaigns around this strategy of ignoring all fact.
The people in congress that believe in jewish space lasers didn't get elected because everyone around them thought they were crazy conspiracy theorists.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The truth is, we don't know the causality. Nobody has a good explanation of what makes an otherwise normal, intelligent person believe Q-anon, for example. We have some ham-fisted theories about how Hitler riled his country to exterminate Jews, but it's not really a nuanced enough explanation to say when/if something like it could happen again [nor assure us it won't]. I'd like to pretend that we're all rational agen…
>Nobody has a good explanation of what makes an otherwise normal, intelligent person believe Q-anon, for example. It's easily explainable, on the contrary, it was an intelligence psyop using half-truths that was setup to perform the two fold-function of honeypotting and distracting the "conspiracy theorists" who might look into the Trump admin and understand it's real dark underbelly , which is completely different f…
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."
> I wholeheartedly agree, but how do you get the other side to listen?
I don’t think there’s any winning some people over.
My mother had a very problematic stat about police violence and racism last summer. I was able prove it wrong by getting the real stat in five seconds with a Google search. The source is well known and reputable. She refused to stop clinging to her source.