Earlier quoted context omitted.
US Gov doesn't prevent you from starting your own.
The US Gov is effectively Google Facebook and they will shut you down or shadowban you under some pretense. As well as the politically protected duopoly Visa, Mastercard refusing payment processing. If Cloudflare even allows your site to stay up. You survive that, you also have to dodge secret police assassins and top politicians calling for your murder as with Assange and Wikileaks. But yes aside from that you are t…
China proposes prohibiting private investment in news service sector
121–130 of 147 posts
Re: China proposes prohibiting private investment in news service sector
#122In the West privately funded media has increased polarisation over the last 50 years, so having stronger public investments in media could be helpful to stop this pervasive divisiveness. China has the opposite configuration where the state controls all information and you'll be re-educated if you say the wrong thing loud enough. These are both extremes that are undesirable IMO.
I wish PBS was better funded and supported, maybe look to BBC as an example to emulate. Though BBC also has non-new programming (drag race!). The problem is trusting government. I don't trust either parties here so I would lean toward a for-profit system with heavier regulation. It looks like the Fairness Doctrine is no more? Anyone have better knowledge here than I do who can give some background? From what I kind o…
No, BBC today is a bad example. BBC 50 years ago, I don't know.
Re: China proposes prohibiting private investment in news service sector
#123A communist party taking steps against private investment? What has the world come to /s
Re: China proposes prohibiting private investment in news service sector
#124In the West privately funded media has increased polarisation over the last 50 years, so having stronger public investments in media could be helpful to stop this pervasive divisiveness. China has the opposite configuration where the state controls all information and you'll be re-educated if you say the wrong thing loud enough. These are both extremes that are undesirable IMO.
Meaning having all the correct facts, and information, will not fix polarization, only societal evolution
Re: China proposes prohibiting private investment in news service sector
#125Earlier 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…
> Google writes news articles? Google writes PR pieces. I don't see why you should trust news articles more than PR pieces, except as links to other sources that you can check yourself like scientific articles or government agencies with data. > 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…
Re: China proposes prohibiting private investment in news service sector
#126In Canada media is controlled by a handful of private companies who are well connected to political factions. The public broadcaster while generally left tries to stay neutral. Small publications are ignored and usually shutout to the point of them needing to sue to ask a question. Private or public if the media is controlled by a small club of wealthy and/or connected players you have an unhealthy and not very free…
Re: China proposes prohibiting private investment in news service sector
#127Earlier 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.
Of course they do. Do you think the Chinese government can't figure out what you access via a VPN? I find it hard to be confident that the US Security Apparatus couldn't figure out what I access via VPN if they chose to. I'm not sure whether the US or the CCP would be more able to block all VPNs, but I have the feeling the answer is the latter (for legal, rather than technical reasons).
Re: China proposes prohibiting private investment in news service sector
#128Earlier 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…
> […]
> The population will ,by and large, believe what he wants them to believe, most people wouldn't consider dissent on the issue because there would be no point.
> There are some people within every population that will chose to 'look outside' and 'seek unpopular truths' - but the mainstream population will take care of suppressing them.
The more effective approach by far is to condition people from childhood into believing that the ability to select from one of a few impotent political identities, all of which lead to the slightest variations of policy conclusions within the field of pre-determined acceptability, represents the universal best possible form of governance and the purest instantiation of such high-minded ideals as Freedom, Liberty, and Justice.
This way you can mollify a population into accepting almost anything as normal: endless wars, hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths, lifelong debt, a constant struggle to afford housing, education, and medical care, etc. You can convince them at will that any rival is a tyrannical regime under a capricious, childish, genocidal maniac, and that any evidence to the contrary should be dismissed with self-satisfied smugness as coerced or compensated state propaganda.
Re: China proposes prohibiting private investment in news service sector
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m not sure many in the west would see divisiveness as a negative, in so much that it seems necessary to reach an stable equilibrium. Yes, one side will find the other side’s position infuriating, but China is the result of what happens when one side completely wins over the other. Because there is no equilibrium to be had, they can only emphasize unity.
If you want to balance a system dynamically, you want negative, not positive feedback loops. The latter will just grow until they shake the system apart. In other words: polarisation is useful when it's transient. Some issue causes people to divide and work out some consensus, and then divisions die down. A persistent divison that becomes its own end is destructive.
Actually, doesn’t China do that? It paints it’s people’s struggles as them vs the rest of the world. Maybe they don’t need political competition because the CIA gets the blame for many of its domestic problems.
Re: China proposes prohibiting private investment in news service sector
#130In the West privately funded media has increased polarisation over the last 50 years, so having stronger public investments in media could be helpful to stop this pervasive divisiveness. China has the opposite configuration where the state controls all information and you'll be re-educated if you say the wrong thing loud enough. These are both extremes that are undesirable IMO.
> These are both extremes that are undesirable IMO. The problem with putting them in the same sentence is that it equates them, in the same way "very fine people on both sides" did. Being sent to a reeducation camp, keeping a billion plus population exposed only to propaganda, a total lack of free speech, and openly disappearing people (like Gedhun Choekyi Nyima of Tibet) is not in the same bracket as any of the othe…
The same things are present in both the chinese and American societies, under different names. Eg. The US prosecuted the "war on drugs" to house a ton of political prisoners and ensure they cant vote, and that their families cannot become wealthier without adopting the party line. The Facebook moderation team remove your direct message to a friend is not materially different from the government moderation team removing your wichat direct message to a friend. American society disappears people too; for an obvious example, you can look at the people painting red hands on their faces