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

101–110 of 602 posts

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

#101

Post by phkahler »

garg wrote: post #34
curiousllama wrote: post #19

2 parts of this are interesting to me. The first is "House Democrats demand" - the government should not be regulating speech, even if it's false/dangerous/moronic. The letter is dumb and dangerous. The second is "Cable providers to censor misinformation" - infrastructure providers regulating speech sounds very similar to the whole Parler deplatforming. I wonder what my own reaction would be if cable companies indepe…

The government should be regulating the broadcast of false information that is blatant propaganda. Freedom of speech is not freedom to broadcast blatant lies to millions of people.

In that case, all the media would be shut down.

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

#102

Post by minikites »

Stepping back to a larger discussion about censorship, how exactly is "the marketplace of ideas" supposed to fight blatant falsehoods and other propaganda/misinformation? Ignoring it doesn't have the best track record so far, even Mark Twain figured out that a lie can make it halfway around the world before the truth even starts.

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

#103

Post by zug_zug »

TrispusAttucks wrote: post #76

To determine misinformation you must first determine information. We would need to setup some government entity to determine true information. We could call it the "Ministry of Truth". Unless that name is already taken? ... the cold wind blows...

If only somehow the government could determine what is true...

When somebody is accused of a crime we just have to say "Guilty according to whom?" and let them go, because there's no way to know what's true. Sure the DNA says he murdered 3 children, but what are those scientists really after!

If only there were some organized system for appointed people with great track records to somehow listen to both sides of an argument and produce some sort of "judgment" at the end. But that's impossible, because only the TV box knows what's true. Alas...

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

#104

Post by axaxs »

BitwiseFool wrote: post #4

"How many of your subscribers tuned in to Fox News, Newsmax, and OANN on U-verse, DirecTV, and AT&T TV for each of the four weeks preceding the November 3, 2020 elections and the January 6, 2021 attacks on the Capitol? Please specify the number of subscribers that tuned in to each channel ." Does this strike anyone else as a nakedly partisan move?

It is -very- partisan, and equivalent to poking a wasp nest with a stick.

The country is very, very divided, not just between D vs R but also progressive vs...everyone else.

I wish I had the answers(surprise, I don't), but I feel we should find some commonality, some give and take, and get on a path toward a semblance of unity. Trying to silence your opposition is what I'd call the complete opposite of that approach.

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

#105

Post by NeonVice »

These media companies are regulated by the FCC, so media companies will now feel pressured to effectively regulate free speech on behalf of the political party in power to avoid any negative repercussions in unrelated matters.

It's disturbing that the constitution limits the government from quelling free speech so now the government is pressuring private companies to achieve what they are forbidden to do on their own.

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

#106

Post by gotoeleven »

Remember when republicans sent a letter to cable providers asking them how many viewers watched MSNBC for russia conspiracy theories or context-free coverage of the recent police shootings or sympathetic coverage of people burning down police stations and declaring autonomous zones or the breathless reporting about "kids in cages" and everyone thought that was totally cool?

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

#107

Post by opwieurposiu »

katmannthree wrote: post #56
opwieurposiu wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fire extinguisher attack turned out to be BS. https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/capitol-police-officers-...

Does that meet the standard for being an unverified conspiracy theory? It seems that the story came from a source they were keeping anonymous (fairly conventional in journalism, especially when reporting things in real time) and was promptly updated as more news came in. It's worth noting that there is fairly extensive video of an unhelmeted officer getting hit in the head with a fire extinguisher thrown during a bra…

There is plenty of evidence of voting irregularities. An irregularity only becomes fraud when it was done with criminal intent.

The overarching issue with normalization of censorship is that it becomes difficult to tell when evidence does not exist and when it does exist but was censored.

https://hereistheevidence.com/

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

#108

Post by macspoofing »

asterialite wrote: post #49

I think the crux of the issue is not freedom of speech, but rather determining what counts as harmful disinformation. I imagine we all agree that disinformation should be curbed; the point of contention is precisely where we should draw the line. The violent, seditious sentiments present in America today are a direct result of people being permitted to pander dangerous lies with no consequences, lies which have cause…

>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.

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

#109

Post by arrosenberg »

jolux wrote: post #36
garg wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who do you think should exert pressure against networks that broadcast misinformation and propaganda to millions of people?

If anybody, it should be the public, not the government, from the perspective of constitutional law. In an ethical sense, I'm less sure, because I feel pretty certain that the networks named in these letters are harmful to the country and harmful to democracy, but I'm unsure about the relative costs in the long-term of government intervention here. The ruling party attacking opposition media is never a good look, no…

This is the United States - the government is the public.

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

#110

Post by hpcjoe »

pfortuny wrote: post #98
BitwiseFool wrote: post #4

"How many of your subscribers tuned in to Fox News, Newsmax, and OANN on U-verse, DirecTV, and AT&T TV for each of the four weeks preceding the November 3, 2020 elections and the January 6, 2021 attacks on the Capitol? Please specify the number of subscribers that tuned in to each channel ." Does this strike anyone else as a nakedly partisan move?

From "how many people" to "what people" there is only a single step. And it is very very very easy to take it. That a congressperson makes this kind of question speaks volumes about him. Unbelievable .

I know I'll be downvoted for this, but fundamentally this definition[1] includes "and forcible suppression of opposition". In what way is this letter not the first step in this direction?

I'm no fan of the previous president. Really didn't like him. But this ... this attempt at shutting down of opposition communication, is the hallmark, the signature of nascent oppression. And a slide into fascism/socialism/etc.

[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism

Post reply on HN