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

571–580 of 602 posts

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

#571

Post by minikites »

bpodgursky wrote: post #370
minikites wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So how does "more people voting" lead to single-party dominance? I only see one party working for that goal, and it isn't the Democratic party.

> I only see one party working for that goal I mean, that's silly — any political party would love single-party dominance. Democrats want "more people voting" because their thesis is that most disengaged or non-voters would default Democrat. It's fine if you believe is that "more people voting is good for democracy" but it's not the reason that the Democrats are focused on getting more people ballots.

The Democrats know they have popular ideas, I fail to see how that's a sinister motive as you imply.

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

#572

Post by Spivak »

lurquer wrote: post #550
Spivak wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> It’s a rule against someone speaking something they know and believe a priori to be false with the intent to mislead people. If one doesn’t believe in the Holocaust, yet publishes erudite webpages with the intent to mislead others (at least from his POV) into thinking it really happened, would that be a problem? If yes, you are consistent, albeit a bit crazy. If no, your rule reduces, once again, to a focus on the…

It would be a problem! I don’t think people would care as much because it’s the same as stealing a balloon on free balloon day but you still have a guilty mind and had the intent to deceive people regardless of your success at it.

It becomes a bigger issue if the evidence on the site is made up but I won’t assume that.

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

#573

Post by scsilver »

cwkoss wrote: post #437
e40 wrote: post #383

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…

The Biden administration has been in power for a month. I think you are being a bit hyperbolic about its failure and lack of criticism by msnbc. Which campaign promises have been rolled back if I can ask?

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

#574

Post by bzbarsky »

74B5 wrote: post #489
bzbarsky wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First of all, "insults" are not excluded from free speech protections in the US, except in very narrow circumstances. Second, the distinction between normative and descriptive statements, as you define them, is not always clear-cut. As a simple example, is which bucket is "I think these doors are the same color" when said about a red and green door? What about (to use your example, but with a slight tweak), "I think…

>Second, the distinction between normative and descriptive statements, as you define them, is not always clear-cut. True but does not matter. Those statements, that fit into the descriptive/normative categories are the key ones of any text, the rest is either allusion or up for the courts to decide. IMO phrasing like "looks like there might be voter fraud" would not have let to the storm of the capitol. >"I think all…

> "I think ..." already started subjectively

But fundamentally me saying "I think the sky is blue" and "the sky is blue" are the same thing: the latter just has the "I think" implicit but clear to anyone who stops to think for a moment about what it means that _I_ am saying it. Maybe most people don't think, of course.

> But courts decide who is a criminal or not.

Sort of. The courts decided OJ Simpson is not a criminal by the legal definition. The descriptive statement "OJ Simpson committed a crime" has fairly contested truth value.

> hopefully in an unbiased way.

I guess the key is that the US approach starts out by admitting that the "unbiased way" is an unattainable fantasy and then works on routing around that problem. The real discussion here is whether the cure is worse than the disease in this case.

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

#575

Post by tarboreus »

Spivak wrote: post #393
blacktriangle wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is exactly why no matter where you land politically, you should be 100% in favor of fighting for free speech for yourself and the other side.

I think there’s a disconnect here. Does free speech have to include someone knowingly purposely spreading misinformation with the intent to deceive people? Or someone speaking with the explicit intent to harm another person? Because I think nobody should be able to silence your thoughts, ideas or opinions but those things don’t encompass all speech.

Yes, it does, because who decides what is harmful or what is wrong? There is no freedom in speech if there is an authority deciding whether it is harmful. That is restructured speech, not free speech.

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

#576

Post by tarboreus »

maerF0x0 wrote: post #191
tarboreus wrote: post #16

Is anyone finding this terrifying? When did democrafts, the party I vote for, become the people calling for tight censorship in every sector? Weren't the last people to make this move (more more ineffectively, thankfully) the Christian right? Is there something we can do to stand up for speech?

> When did democrafts, the party I vote for Probably around the same time as it became socially unacceptable not to vote for them? Note how you had to qualify yourself as a democrat voter as some kind of proof point of the validity of your claims?

Honestly, that's fair.

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

#577

Post by jimbokun »

jancsika wrote: post #466
jimbokun wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the most part, it is socially unacceptable to vote Republican if you live in a large US city, and it is socially unacceptable to vote Democrat if you live in a rural area.

I've never seen any evidence that it's "socially unacceptable" in any meaningful sense of the term to vote Democrat in a rural area. Where are you getting this?

Anecdote:

My son's soccer team from the city decided they wanted to make a statement against racism and kneel for the national anthem before games. At one of the suburban/rural schools, they were vehemently booed and yelled at by the parents and supporters of the other team.

(And the decision to kneel was made after a game the previous season against a different rural high school where my son's team mates were racially abused during the game.)

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

#578

Post by protonfish »

rayiner wrote: post #565
protonfish wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The People" believe whatever information has been promoted the most. To claim that we should do nothing to stop malevolent organizations from radicalizing vulnerable citizens is reckless. To lay the blame on individuals to fight this is victim-blaming. We need to battle this industrialized con artistry with whatever power we have - including police, courts, and laws. Throwing up our hands because "censorship bad!" i…

> The People" believe whatever information has been promoted the most. To claim that we should do nothing to stop malevolent organizations from radicalizing vulnerable citizens is reckless. To lay the blame on individuals to fight this is victim-blaming. We need to battle this industrialized con artistry with whatever power we have - including police, courts, and laws. This is exactly what conservatives said in respo…

Exactly! It is a powerful tool that works and conservatives wield it well while the cringing libs are all "But if we use effective techniques doesn't that make us as bad as them?" No, it doesn't - it just them the pathetic failures they are.

Good and wise people don't bring knives to gunfights.

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

#579

Post by e40 »

drak0n1c wrote: post #402
e40 wrote: post #383

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.

MSNBC has a history of misinformation contributing to the highly polarized environment today. Here is a video showing how MSNBC purposefully cropped footage of an armed protester at an Obama townhall to hide his race (he was black), and used the clip to immediately launch into a discussion claiming that town hall protesters were motivated by racism. Soon after that media cycle my peers in college started assuming tha…

I'm not suggesting MSNBC is not guilty of this. Look at the sheer volume of lies and misinformation on the Fox News network. There is just no comparison.

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

#580

Post by xyzzyz »

jimbokun wrote: post #577
jancsika wrote: post #466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never seen any evidence that it's "socially unacceptable" in any meaningful sense of the term to vote Democrat in a rural area. Where are you getting this?

Anecdote: My son's soccer team from the city decided they wanted to make a statement against racism and kneel for the national anthem before games. At one of the suburban/rural schools, they were vehemently booed and yelled at by the parents and supporters of the other team. (And the decision to kneel was made after a game the previous season against a different rural high school where my son's team mates were racial…

That’s not booing for voting, that’s about making a divisive political statement on a freaking kid soccer game. When you bring your activism into non-political contexts, don’t get surprised when people don’t like it.
Post reply on HN