31–40 of 147 posts
I wonder why people don't demand more non-profit news or why articles written by for-profit organizations are as trusted as they are. Why should people trust articles written by NyT over articles written by Google?
A true facts only news outlet is likely best, but provides little entertainment value.
I wonder why people don't demand more non-profit news or why articles written by for-profit organizations are as trusted as they are. Why should people trust articles written by NyT over articles written by Google?
Google writes news articles? The issue is freedom of expression. If individuals are allowed to speak, write and disseminate information and opinion freely and own businesses, why can't they charge for it? Well, that's a news organisation. It's not that you necessarily trust any one individual publisher, it's that a range of views are freely represented in the press generally. The Chinese constitution used to guarante…
No, that's a publisher. "News" describes the product, not the method of operation. Has the war on words been so successful that Americans univerally consider e.g. Cosmo "news" now?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you think people in China don't know how to use VPNs and find information on the broader Internet? They do. It seems like you may be the one living in a bubble.
A VPN will get you a few research papers, and some insight into the world outside, but it won't change common attitudes within the country, which will be shaped by a controlled information system. Having a 'hole' in the information firewall can be useful for some things, but it's still a marginal effect. Most of the population won't have any use for it - they'll have no reason to question what's in the mainstream. Wh…
Exactly. The point of information control in closed society is not to avoid the exposure of particular events, but to suppress entire lines of thought.
F.ex. How would you begin a conversation with a North Korean about democracy?
Their very concept of the idea, inasmuch as they are likely aware of it at all, is alien to your concept.
Which means that conversation has to start all the way underneath, at the underpinnings and philosophical bases of democracy. Which is a much more difficult and lengthy conversation.
Which is the entire point, because most people won't make the effort. Anymore so than the average American is capable of and interested in learning enough to have a nuanced conversation on the differences between Soviet and Chinese communism.
On the flip side China purchased most Chinese language media in Australia some time back. https://www.smh.com.au/national/chinese-language-newspapers-...
The recent nuclear submarine deal makes a lot more sense with that world view.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If Xi did not want power for himself he would not have removed the two-term limit to keep himself in power for life.
Because Communist countries tend to have very messy transfers of power, if not through continuity or annointment of a new leader by the old? And by messy I mean armed forces involvement and/or bodies in the streets.
The story is really simple - CCP wants to forbid any private control of information, that's it. It's not a new concept.
I wonder why people don't demand more non-profit news or why articles written by for-profit organizations are as trusted as they are. Why should people trust articles written by NyT over articles written by Google?
At least theoretically, if customers actually valued accuracy, they would punish news organizations that were not accurate. A for profit newspaper would need to respond to the changing market. A not for profit newspaper could easily have a backer with other motivations, where they might be willing to sacrifice accuracy to push a particular agenda. I am not sure that the problem is the news. I do not think people real…
In any case, the eyeballs are the product. The advertisers are increasingly the true customers of media outlets. They don't even theoretically care about accuracy.
I wonder why people don't demand more non-profit news or why articles written by for-profit organizations are as trusted as they are. Why should people trust articles written by NyT over articles written by Google?
Shouldn’t news be parcelled like AT&T and centralization systematically unweeded, for it is far more dangerous than centralization in energy or internet providers. Then, when there are thousands of small information providers, we can see bottom-up what actually interests people, rather than beating up an idea from the top-down until people think it’s interesting.
I wonder why people don't demand more non-profit news or why articles written by for-profit organizations are as trusted as they are. Why should people trust articles written by NyT over articles written by Google?
What does non-profit news look like? A few rich people starting non-profit and making news might not be very trustworthy. I guess you mean a wide group of donors. But non-profits have a lot of trouble raising money without controversy. Imagine trying to solicit donations when every other story alienates half the donors. And it doesn't really answer a lot of the hard questions. Who is going to actually write the artic…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google writes news articles? The issue is freedom of expression. If individuals are allowed to speak, write and disseminate information and opinion freely and own businesses, why can't they charge for it? Well, that's a news organisation. It's not that you necessarily trust any one individual publisher, it's that a range of views are freely represented in the press generally. The Chinese constitution used to guarante…
Well, that's a news organisation No, that's a publisher. "News" describes the product, not the method of operation. Has the war on words been so successful that Americans univerally consider e.g. Cosmo "news" now?