Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

NPR quits Twitter after being labeled as 'state-affiliated media'

wbur.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

801–810 of 1001 posts

Re: NPR quits Twitter after being labeled as 'state-affiliated media'

#801

Post by bropleaseread »

harrelchris wrote: post #544
kaeresten_dit wrote: post #467

Seems like a funny reaction to a label added as a subtitle to an organization with the name National Public Radio People get attached to words or phrases without thinking about what they actually mean, seems like definitions get modified to emotionally herd the [un]imaginative/initiated Wild that style of thinking goes that high up the chain at NPR the CEO sounds child-like with their response

Twitter defines state-affiliated media as: > outlets where the state exercises control over editorial content through financial resources, direct or indirect political pressures, and/or control over production and distribution. [1] This isn't an accurate description of NPR. The government has no control over the content. > NPR receives less than 1% of its direct funding from the federal government [2] Even Twitter re…

[flagged]

Re: NPR quits Twitter after being labeled as 'state-affiliated media'

#802

Post by AlbertCory »

d23 wrote: post #784
AlbertCory wrote: post #754

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

You’ve supported my point: there’s no consistent forced state narrative. Bias for or against a political party is orthogonal to whether the state itself is executing editorial control.

No, I'm certainly not supporting your point.

The Twitter Files show government agencies directly pressuring Twitter to cover or suppress stories. They did this despite a Republican president being in power.

So yes, that is "the state itself [is] executing editorial control." You are just spinning words if you say, "ok, yeah, they do it, but it's not consistent."

Re: NPR quits Twitter after being labeled as 'state-affiliated media'

#803

Post by codeddesign »

detaro wrote: post #799
codeddesign wrote: post #797

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Based on what criteria? NPR is specifically in the congressional budget by law..yes, we have a law to keep them funded by the US govt. Is the criteria money? coercion? backdoor-deals? bias? As per Twitter’s criteria, it’s money.

Is it? "State-affiliated media is defined as outlets where the state exercises control over editorial content through financial resources, direct or indirect political pressures, and/or control over production and distribution." Control/Coercion seem more important, especially since Twitter has a separate category for media with government funding. (cf https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/state-affilia... f…

I was asking your criteria.

Twitter: “Financial Resource” Considering we do have a law around funding NPR and the company would be impacted of that funding went away, personally I see it as appropriate.

However, I also see it appropriate that Fox News and Washington Post get the same tag. (party political pressures)

Re: NPR quits Twitter after being labeled as 'state-affiliated media'

#804

Post by infamouscow »

NickM wrote: post #269
hitpointdrew wrote: post #203

How on earth can anyone say "falsely labeled"? NPR does get money from the federal government, that is an undisputable fact. How are they not "state-affilated"? I don't care how small a % of the budget is money from the government. The fact they take any money at all from the gov makes them sate-affilated.

Twitter's own definition of "state-affiliated media" reads as follows: State-affiliated media is defined as outlets where the state exercises control over editorial content through financial resources, direct or indirect political pressures, and/or control over production and distribution. By this definition, NPR is not state-affiliated.

If NPR was as upstanding as some think, and if this money isn't meaningful as claimed, then why is it so hard for NPR to give the money back and distance themselves in a way that leaves no room for question about being propaganda?

Re: NPR quits Twitter after being labeled as 'state-affiliated media'

#805

Post by guidorice »

national: (adjective)

relating to a nation; common to or characteristic of a whole nation: this policy may have been in the national interest | a national newspaper. • owned, controlled, or financially supported by the federal government: plans for a national art library.

Re: NPR quits Twitter after being labeled as 'state-affiliated media'

#806

Post by preseinger »

kodah wrote: post #715
lostlogin wrote: post #618

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The parent comment isn’t referring to Twitter surely?

I think they were trying to say because Twitter successfully suppressed conspiracy theories in the past that it gives them a pass when the information happened to not be a conspiracy theory. If that was the takeaway, I fully disagree. If you get into the suppression game, even for the right reasons, you deserve whatever comes your way when you're wrong even once. That's how we keep powerful entities honest.

covid misinformation is a conspiracy theory, suppressing idiocy is virtuous

"oh but if you allow a platform to suppress stupid shit then how do you know that they won't suppress other blah blah blah" judgment my bro, it is ok if things are subjective

Re: NPR quits Twitter after being labeled as 'state-affiliated media'

#807

Post by smoldesu »

1123581321 wrote: post #721
icehawk wrote: post #532

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The internet blew its moment. But onboarding—specifically, choosing an ISP—was too tedious for non-niche adoption.

You joke, but Mastodon could’ve learned from the history there, at least in the US. AOL in particular had a huge mainstream user base that didn’t really understand what was AOL and what was Internet. Witgout that gentle introduction, yes, many would’ve have been stuck trying to figure out which company to use to get online for longer.

AOL also charged you $15 a month for an email subdomain, whereas on Mastodon that kind of lock-in wouldn't exist. Creating an AOL-like company for Mastodon doesn't work unless your ultimate goal is to be blocked by every major federated community.

Re: NPR quits Twitter after being labeled as 'state-affiliated media'

#808

Post by adamrezich »

afinlayson wrote: post #232
trasz3 wrote: post #70

Yeah, it's not like their CEO came directly from the relevant government bureau, right? I'm not a fan of Elon (or most companies, for that matter), but this was the right thing to do. Previously the "government-sponsored" badge was nothing more than US propaganda.

SpaceX and Telsa are government funded ... More so than NPR. I don't see that tag anywhere on Twitter. And I wouldn't be surprised if twitter is combing the tax code to find government subsidies. It's the slippery slope fallacy. Maybe we should start calling jaywalkers un-convicted criminals. It'd be a good way to differentiate rural and urban people for political gain. This is just another way to keep people heading…

it is very frustrating to see this openly disingenuous argument made repeatedly here in these comments.

media corporations are different from other corporations in that their product is information, as opposed to other types of services or physical goods. information is something that can be biased, politically or otherwise. this does not apply to automobiles, spacecraft, or any other non-information-related product. the release of an electric automobile cannot influence anyone's view, opinion, or emotions, with regards to anything except the existence of said electric automobile.

Re: NPR quits Twitter after being labeled as 'state-affiliated media'

#809

Post by detaro »

codeddesign wrote: post #803
detaro wrote: post #799

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it? "State-affiliated media is defined as outlets where the state exercises control over editorial content through financial resources, direct or indirect political pressures, and/or control over production and distribution." Control/Coercion seem more important, especially since Twitter has a separate category for media with government funding. (cf https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/state-affilia... f…

I was asking your criteria. Twitter: “Financial Resource” Considering we do have a law around funding NPR and the company would be impacted of that funding went away, personally I see it as appropriate. However, I also see it appropriate that Fox News and Washington Post get the same tag. (party political pressures)

I was responding to the "As per Twitter’s criteria, it’s money." part. Fox and WP as state-affiliated seems weird to me: being close to a party line is not necessarily the same as state-affiliation. (Given we're talking a democracy and not a one-party state - I don't think you could make that distinction in e.g. China due to how interconnected it is there)

Re: NPR quits Twitter after being labeled as 'state-affiliated media'

#810

Post by sonotathrowaway »

yossarian1408 wrote: post #502
bagels wrote: post #317

Should Twitter itself get a state sponsored label for getting concessions from San Francisco on their headquarters? https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/S-F-controller-hails-... Should Elon's account (or SpaceX or Telsa) have the same label because of their significant government funding? It's hard to see this as anything but silly politics games.

Twitter, SpaceX and Tesla are not newspapers/publishers. The reason for labelling news organisations' government affiliations is for the viewer/reader to understand that there may or may not be bias, and where the funding is coming from. If NPR's government contributions are embarrassing for the organisation, it might be best for them to forgo that funding. Additionally, if there's no influence/bias, then why does it…

Irrelevant and misleading. By Twitter’s own guidelines it’s not a state owned publisher.
Post reply on HN