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

551–560 of 602 posts

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

#551

Post by _v7gu »

temp8964 wrote: post #62
runlevel1 wrote: post #5

There is no such demand in the PDF linked. EDIT: In case the title gets changed, it is currently "House Democrats Demand Cable Providers to Censor Misinformation [PDF]" EDIT 2: After all the downvotes, I looked again but still am not seeing it.

" 4. What steps did you take prior to, on, and following the November 3, 2020 elections and the January 6, 2021 attacks to monitor, respond to, and reduce the spread of disinformation, including encouragement or incitement of violence by channels your company disseminates to millions of Americans? Please describe each step that you took and when it was taken. 5. Have you taken any adverse actions against a channel, i…

It's like reading a Politico fact check on a democrat.

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

#552

Post by camelite »

NicoJuicy wrote: post #394
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…

> But recently flat out knowingly lying with the specific intent of deceiving people has become normalised. It’s a serious threat. It's literally propaganda. A Russian tactic called the firehose of falsehoods. The trick is making the truth politically related, so the real truth doesn't matter anymore. And people can just say it's a "x" opinion to dismiss it. It's unfortunately pretty effective as we've seen...

Propaganda is not an inherently russian technique and that fact that you believe so implies you are a victim of anti russian propaganda.

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

#553

Post by simonh »

pfisch wrote: post #435
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…

"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…

I have no problem with platform owners editorialising. Well I do in some sense, if it's done in a shitty way, but that's an opinion and shouldn't be legislated.

Editorialising on a publishing platform you own is a right I'd not like to see infringed on. It's a matter for free citizens to decide. If the public disagree with the editorialising, they can use another platform. It's freedom all round. It's not ideal, but the alternatives are worse.

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

#554

Post by simonh »

camelite wrote: post #552
NicoJuicy wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But recently flat out knowingly lying with the specific intent of deceiving people has become normalised. It’s a serious threat. It's literally propaganda. A Russian tactic called the firehose of falsehoods. The trick is making the truth politically related, so the real truth doesn't matter anymore. And people can just say it's a "x" opinion to dismiss it. It's unfortunately pretty effective as we've seen...

Propaganda is not an inherently russian technique and that fact that you believe so implies you are a victim of anti russian propaganda.

The firehose of falsehood is propaganda sure, but it's principles were consciously and deliberately developed by the USSR as a particular propaganda technique. It's partly based on the rhetorical strategies used by Lenin. One of his (Russian) biographers called him the godfather of post-truth politics.

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

#555

Post by noxer »

scrollaway wrote: post #534
noxer wrote: post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Be…

> Disinformation is best frighted by debunking it I used to believe that as well. Then we did real world practical experiments over the last decade. It's clear most people don't give a shit about informing themselves and will readily believe just about anything. Not saying the solution is regulating what can / cannot be said, but this idea that free speech is the ultimate thing isn't working when you have groups that…

I accept this as unavoidable reality. The only way to fight this problem is education. I'm not worried much about the fact that everyone "believes" some stuff that is actually not true. This is and was the case for all time humans where alive. In time where people had the opportunity to debate the different "truths" humanity made progress. In times or societies where this was not possible progress was slow. we dont need and will never get the absolute truth. but wee need freedom to search for it. there is no guarantee that we will find it and even the opinion of the majority can be wrong and often is but it will self-correct as long as pointing out the wrong is allowed. There will always come a time where the wrong becomes obvious to the majority. Pointing out the wrong will be disinformation if the people who decide are in the wrong. We can not have that risk.

So back to the start. You cant have an authority who decide. whats right or wrong has to be proofed/debunked. And it can not be removed afterwards as this would invalidate the debunking. This is a slow and inefficient process we should probably focus on making it better because it works, it just does not work as good and as fast as the modern world would require. The shortcut "solutions" however will most likely not work at all and potentially case more harm than good.

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

#556

Post by scrollaway »

noxer wrote: post #555
scrollaway wrote: post #534

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Disinformation is best frighted by debunking it I used to believe that as well. Then we did real world practical experiments over the last decade. It's clear most people don't give a shit about informing themselves and will readily believe just about anything. Not saying the solution is regulating what can / cannot be said, but this idea that free speech is the ultimate thing isn't working when you have groups that…

I accept this as unavoidable reality. The only way to fight this problem is education. I'm not worried much about the fact that everyone "believes" some stuff that is actually not true. This is and was the case for all time humans where alive. In time where people had the opportunity to debate the different "truths" humanity made progress. In times or societies where this was not possible progress was slow. we dont n…

I fully agree with you that education is the ultimate solution, but in the mean time, wtf do we do about the entities that have wealth and power, and are able to influence millions of people on just about whatever the fuck they want?

What do we do when the things they choose to influence the population on are no longer just "the rich getting richer" but become actual existential threats? When they get dictators elected, make climate change worse, endanger lives by producing healthcare misinformation, etc?

Does it matter that, over the long term, there are more idealistic freedom of speech ideals if we don't live long enough to even get to the long term?

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

#557

Post by noxer »

scrollaway wrote: post #556
noxer wrote: post #555

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I accept this as unavoidable reality. The only way to fight this problem is education. I'm not worried much about the fact that everyone "believes" some stuff that is actually not true. This is and was the case for all time humans where alive. In time where people had the opportunity to debate the different "truths" humanity made progress. In times or societies where this was not possible progress was slow. we dont n…

I fully agree with you that education is the ultimate solution, but in the mean time, wtf do we do about the entities that have wealth and power, and are able to influence millions of people on just about whatever the fuck they want? What do we do when the things they choose to influence the population on are no longer just "the rich getting richer" but become actual existential threats? When they get dictators elect…

I dont know a solution to solve this all either. But I'm worried we make it worse with bad solutions.

Certainly you dont want to give these powerful people the tools to become more powerfully by implementing an authoritarian system against disinformation. Its rather obvious that if these powerful people can not circumvent that system they will become the system. If they can manipulate millions they sure can manipulate or replace the few "decision makers" too. Now you have powerful people spreading disinformation who also have the power to remove any critics simply by labeling it disinformation.

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

#558

Post by throwaway0a5e »

minikites wrote: post #356
skynet-9000 wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a strikingly illiberal stance. Attacking free speech is precisely the opposite of what civil liberties has traditionally all been about.

Why is it worth protecting speech that is knowingly false and inflammatory? Think about the paradox of tolerance. True free speech is under threat by the torrent of misinformation and from the constant assault on the very idea of expertise. We as a society have to be active agents to counter misinformation, we can't just sit by and hope it works itself out in "the marketplace of ideas" because that's not how misinfor…

>Why is it worth protecting speech that is knowingly false and inflammatory?

Because absurd opinion like "the earth goes round the sun" and "there's nothing wrong with being gay" were once "knowingly false and inflammatory" according to the overwhelming majority of people.

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

#559

Post by krapp »

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #558
minikites wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it worth protecting speech that is knowingly false and inflammatory? Think about the paradox of tolerance. True free speech is under threat by the torrent of misinformation and from the constant assault on the very idea of expertise. We as a society have to be active agents to counter misinformation, we can't just sit by and hope it works itself out in "the marketplace of ideas" because that's not how misinfor…

>Why is it worth protecting speech that is knowingly false and inflammatory? Because absurd opinion like "the earth goes round the sun" and "there's nothing wrong with being gay" were once "knowingly false and inflammatory" according to the overwhelming majority of people.

>Because absurd opinion like "the earth goes round the sun" and "there's nothing wrong with being gay" were once "knowingly false and inflammatory" according to the overwhelming majority of people.

... therefore we need to keep protecting the speech of people who still believe the world is flat and that homosexuality is an affront to God just in case?

No, I'm sorry, that's an appeal to emotion disguised as rationality. We don't need to keep knowingly false, disproven and regressive ideas around any more than we need to keep arguing the merits of miasma theory, phrenology or the luminiferous aether. To say otherwise is to claim that truth cannot exist, merit cannot be measured and all ideas are equally valid... a premise already discredited by the value judgement made by your argument.

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

#560

Post by macspoofing »

asterialite wrote: post #149
macspoofing wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I imagine we all agree that disinformation should be curbed Who decides what is 'disinformation' or 'misinformation'? You? The Democratic representatives? Jack Dorsey? No thanks. I think I'd like to make up my own mind. Your politics also shine through your comment which also betrays your biases. Free speech is hard when it's speech you don't like and used by your political opponents .. isn't it.

> Who decides what is 'disinformation' or 'misinformation'? You? The Democratic representatives? Jack Dorsey? No thanks. You are restating what I said almost word for word — but still disagreeing. Somehow. Everyone probably agrees that disinformation must be curbed; not everyone agrees on what exactly disinformation is. You seem to think I'm biased against Republicans. This is the case. You seem to be biased against…

>You are restating what I said almost word for word — but still disagreeing. Somehow

I can elaborate. That you've elevated disinformation as a major societal issue that needs to be solved is itself a particular partisan talking point put out by Democrats to explain Hillary's loss in 2016. Trump never had the temperament to be a good president. He should not have been voted in and Hillary was a better candidate ... but he did get voted in because millions of your fellow citizens voted him in. But he was such anathema to the core Democratic base that it became permissible to brake every norm, break every rule and right, including gaslighting and lying, just to get him.

So underneath this 'concern' of yours is not a good faith attempt to tackle this problem objectively. You want a laser focus on your political opponents while you continue to turn a blind eye to the disinformation, misinformation, gas lighting and outright lies that Democratic party, along with mainstream media (which ostensibly became the PR department for the party) and Big Tech engaged in pushing one conspiracy theory after another, week after week after week for the entire Trump presidency.

Post reply on HN