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

511–520 of 602 posts

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

#511

Post by rayiner »

jolux wrote: post #245
CWuestefeld wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what I contest is the idea that there is comparable misinformation on both sides I don't see that we need to even consider the question of parity. Saying that one side or another is worse, and therefore requires special attention, is wrong: it's false that only the worst offender should be policed. All sides should be subject to the same rules, whether they're doing it a lot or just a little. My personal philosophy i…

>All sides should be subject to the same rules, whether they're doing it a lot or just a little. Sure, absolutely. >Saying that one side or another is worse, and therefore requires special attention, is wrong: it's false that only the worst offender should be policed. This is not my position, I just disagree that the "left-wing" media outlets that rayiner identified are materially engaged in misinformation in the sam…

What exactly are those ideas?

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

#512

Post by reducesuffering »

hntrader wrote: post #278
BitwiseFool wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't help but think 'puritanism' is a personality trait and there has always been a sizable portion of the American public dedicated to policing the thoughts and behavior of others. The underlying ideology may have changed, but the archetype sure hasn't. Maybe the so-called SJWs of today would have been Temperance activists 100 years ago.

It's an authoritarian personality type which exists on both the left and the right. It's remarkable that when we look at the many personality subtraits of authoritarian types on the left and the right, they align extremely closely with one another.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory

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

#513

Post by noahtallen »

InfiniteBeing wrote: post #503

Meanwhile the major Democrat leaning/voting news outlets peddled russian collusion conspiracy nonsense for years and then stoked the flames of racial and anti-police violence last year. And I see we have people here clinging to misinformation and melodramatic interpretations by the major liberal news outlets on events of january 6th, and these people don't know that they are living in unreality themselves and yet wan…

You may find the Mueller report enlightening, then. [1] The claims are hardly nonsense: it’s a bipartisan fact that Russians made a big effort to influence at least the 2016 election, and succeeded. [2] Rather than taking a hard stance against Russia because of this, Trump officials have been convicted related to their lies about the situation. [3] Alleging or assuming that trump knew about this and/or encouraged it is not a huge stretch given his history. [4]

You seem to be saying the entire thing is conspiracy nonsense, but the reality is that some very deeply concerning things happened. Things not just rumored about, but proven in a court of law [5], or investigated by even Republican committees [2]. Even if you assume that Trump did not specifically ask Russia to do anything (see [4] again), his response to the situation was extremely damning.

1. https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

2. https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/docu...

3. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Links_between_Trump_associat...

4. Trump welcomes Russia to hack Hilary at 13:30 in this video: https://www.c-span.org/video/?413263-1/donald-trump-urges-ru...

5. https://apnews.com/article/ad355d2c983e4a7c85bc17e86d8c563f

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

#514

Post by Auracle »

ntsplnkv2 wrote: post #221
opwieurposiu wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is plenty of evidence of voting irregularities. An irregularity only becomes fraud when it was done with criminal intent. The overarching issue with normalization of censorship is that it becomes difficult to tell when evidence does not exist and when it does exist but was censored. https://hereistheevidence.com/

All of the "evidence" here is from sources like the Washington Examiner and "The RF angle" Are you kidding me? If you want real evidence of "irregularities" look elsewhere, its certainly not here.

You’ll be hard pressed to find a media organization that actually bothered to investigate things instead of immediately claiming Trump’s allegations were false.

Personally, I think that’s the primary reason the riot happened.

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

#515

Post by someonehere »

Isn’t it funny the day after Biden was inaugurated the Covid death toll on all CNN shows in the bottom bar disappeared and all the “left” news outlets started talking less and less about the deaths and problems with Covid? Like it magically went away.

News outlets have their political alignments. All of them do. They’re all pushing a narrative.

How about we just get rid of cable news altogether? There are six companies that own all the media we consume so we should probably do something about it: https://fortune.com/longform/media-company-ownership-consoli...

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

#516

Post by nyczomg »

FireBeyond wrote: post #506
nyczomg wrote: post #495

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You literally commented that there is video of the officer being struck by a fire extinguisher. “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.” Does the word “one” not refer to a fire extinguisher? Did I fail to comprehend your claim? Assuming the video you refer to does s…

https://nypost.com/2021/01/11/video-shows-capitol-rioter-hit... Right there. With a nice big red circle around him.

Since you said: "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."

"him" must unambiguously mean Officer Sicknick according to you.

From your source.

"It’s unclear if the cop who was plunked was Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick, 42."

Oh, comprehension.

Also, the article you cite is over a month old and much newer information is now available. Including the statement that:

"Authorities have reviewed video and photographs that show Sicknick engaging with rioters amid the siege but have yet to identify a moment in which he suffered his fatal injuries, law enforcement officials familiar with the matter said."

But who knows. Maybe investigators have never heard of the NY Post. Make sure you send them a link to that article and video ASAP! You really cracked the case!

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

#517

Post by dnissley »

kelnos wrote: post #485
dnissley wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I agree with your point, though I think your example is a bit flawed: I think it's reasonable to disagree on what should be in a budget; there's no one "correct" budget where all other budgets are wrong. On the other side, facts are facts. Assuming you actually have all the facts (which often we don't), there is only a single truth.

There's not only the issue of incomplete information, there's the issue of salience. There are an infinite number of true statements. Which ones do you focus on? Which ones are the right ones to focus on? You can detect bias in reporting not only based on what is said, but about what is not even mentioned.

The new york times won't run a story sympathetic to liberal individuals pushing back against the excesses of critical race theory. Fox news won't report on how even though there were anomalies in the election, none justified stopping the transfer of power to the Biden administration. Both are bullshit.

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

#518

Post by dnissley »

nobody9999 wrote: post #498
kelnos wrote: post #490

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If someone is ideologically possessed, they will use these tools to skewer outgroup ideas but not apply them to ingroup ideas. Not just that, but ideologically-possessed people will flat-out reject a truth-finding methodology that results in conflicts with their worldview. There's no point in giving someone the tools to find the truth if they're so wedded to their "truth" that evidence will not make them change the…

>There's no point in giving someone the tools to find the truth if they're so wedded to their "truth" that evidence will not make them change their minds. Are you making the argument that because some folks won't use them, such tools/methods are useless?

Perhaps useless in the sense that those who need them the most will either refuse to use them or misuse them.

Going further... I think it might be fair to say that those tools just don't scale.

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

#520

Post by onethought »

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?

I don’t understand this. Can you give an example where the truth is some how elusive or difficult to obtain?

Human knowledge is pretty advanced and accessible.

Post reply on HN