It’s called computers at your public library.
The Push for a “PBS for the Internet”
221–230 of 303 posts
Re: The Push for a “PBS for the Internet”
#222Earlier quoted context omitted.
The harm caused by censorship is so much greater. Look at censorship in the old Soviet Union, present day China, 50s McCarthy era US, North Korea, present day Brazil, India, solidarity era Poland, etc… It isn’t a tool for combating disinformation. It is a tool for suppressing dissent. Also your logic and example are faulty. A beheading video is not disinformation. It is terror. It is a threat to those that oppose ISI…
The Taliban is about to retake Afghanistan, which is a different group than ISIS / ISIL. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban%E2%80%93ISIL_conflict_... In fact, Taliban and ISIL are at war with each other for Afghanistan right now. In any case, we've been incredibly successful at censoring both of them from our mainstream platforms. They wish for recruitment, to spread their propaganda / disinformation, and to grow…
Censorship is a tool, not a goal. The goal was control of Afghanistan. Go look at the map of control. The Taliban have made great gains and the US and allies basically are giving up because they have bigger fish to fry. As noted, the censorship wasn’t about disinformation, it was and is just about power.
Re: The Push for a “PBS for the Internet”
#223If you look at the history of the Public Broadcasting Act [1] that established the CPB and eventually PBS, it seems clear that it was passed in response to poorly-funded educational programming not being able to compete with high-budget commercial network TV. Its authors wanted to make it easier for smaller, non-commercial entities to produce and distribute high-quality educational content. In that regard, the Intern…
Large content platforms don't curate content, and so incentives are misaligned. I believe "curated content without click-baity incentives" is the kind of thing a "PBS" tries to solve. E.g.: an educational video will be followed by flat-earth conspiracy video if the YouTube algorithm choses so. This sabotages content producers with – in this case – educational intentions, as the platform will make producers compete fo…
>>Large content platforms don't curate content
>>it's in platforms best interest to promote engagement
Agree with of what you said, but I have a quibble with the opening line
The large platforms DO curate content, FAR MORE THAN any news org. Your last line quoted above points out exactly how - they actively curate every shred of content anyone posts, optimizing for 'engagement'.
The fact that truth value, moral compass, or societal value (what ordinary publishers generally curate for) is roughly inversely correlated with engagement (which often follows the basest impulses) is irrelevant to the sociopaths who run those large platforms.
This is exactly why a set of news orgs NOT beholden to the clickbait economy - a 'PBS for the Internet' - could be really helpful.
Re: The Push for a “PBS for the Internet”
#224Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, but they haven't not , either. NPR is notoriously biased and niche in its politics. Ask anyone on the half of the country who doesn't vote blue, or necessarily get along with the latest developments in gender identity, of NPR gives their worldview any coverage whatsoever that isn't bashing and negative.
As someone who votes blue, they do not. In addition, their coverage of Jeff Bezos on his space journey really drove home that they aren't without external influence.
As someone who self-identifies as Hispanic, I find NPRs insistence on the term LatinX offensive.
I’m a middle of the road New Yorker but NPR pushes their way out of journalism and into advocacy any time gender or sexual identity enter the conversation.
And due to the risk of being labled anti-Semitic I’ll stay away from their coverage of anything Israel related.
Re: The Push for a “PBS for the Internet”
#225Earlier quoted context omitted.
That may be the intent, but the result is that PBS and NPR still tailor their news content to their supporters' desires (or what, perhaps, editors at these organizations believe are the desires). NPR especially is terrible at presenting real journalism. When it's not "both sides get equal time, even if there's only one fact-based side", it's vanity puff piece interviews and similar content, just like for-profit netwo…
Evidence rather than opinion would be helpful. This is all opinion.
So is most of NPRs “analysis and context”
Re: The Push for a “PBS for the Internet”
#226Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Taliban is about to retake Afghanistan, which is a different group than ISIS / ISIL. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban%E2%80%93ISIL_conflict_... In fact, Taliban and ISIL are at war with each other for Afghanistan right now. In any case, we've been incredibly successful at censoring both of them from our mainstream platforms. They wish for recruitment, to spread their propaganda / disinformation, and to grow…
Censorship is a tool, not a goal. The goal was control of Afghanistan. Go look at the map of control. The Taliban have made great gains and the US and allies basically are giving up because they have bigger fish to fry. As noted, the censorship wasn’t about disinformation, it was and is just about power.
Censorship is a tool. The goal was to prevent Daesh / ISIS from recruiting Americans into dying for their cause in Syria / Iraq.
The number of US citizens flying out to die in a forsaken war on ISIS's side are miniscule to none. Believe it or not, American citizens were doing this back when the surge was happening.
We successfully disrupted their information campaign and their recruitment. And ISIS / ISIL / Daesh is now fighting for relevance (albeit unsuccessfully, mainly on GETTR).
Re: The Push for a “PBS for the Internet”
#227Earlier quoted context omitted.
The corollary to not empowering anyone to push content is disempowering some from pushing content. That is incredibly bad because gives some the power to limit the voices of others. History shows that this power is abused and that the abuse of this power is worse than disinformation. If you look at what is happening today, this call for censorship in the name of combating disinformation has actually had no effect on…
> If you look at what is happening today, this call for censorship in the name of combating disinformation has actually had no effect on disinformation. You say that, but ISIS propaganda has been soundly defeated outside of fringe sites like GETTR. And sure, GETTR remains a hotbed of terrible disinformation (such as this ISIS propaganda), but without a mainstream audience, its much less of an issue compared to giving…
> You say that, but ISIS propaganda has been soundly defeated outside of fringe sites like GETTR.
Really? It took me approximately 15 seconds to find and red ISIS's magazine Dabiq (and not on GETTR, which I had previously not heard of).
Re: The Push for a “PBS for the Internet”
#228If you look at the history of the Public Broadcasting Act [1] that established the CPB and eventually PBS, it seems clear that it was passed in response to poorly-funded educational programming not being able to compete with high-budget commercial network TV. Its authors wanted to make it easier for smaller, non-commercial entities to produce and distribute high-quality educational content. In that regard, the Intern…
"The bill would, for example, give a tax credit to people who donate to nonprofit newsrooms" I'm guessing the overwhelming majority of these nonprofit newsrooms will end up being party-aligned so this will effectively be giving tax credits for political donations.
I expect you're right. They would be aligned with a political (or possibly religious) cause.
Re: The Push for a “PBS for the Internet”
#229PBS, NPR and local affiliates of both have long been on the web. All you need to do is frequent and support them...
Re: The Push for a “PBS for the Internet”
#230The Internet has replaced public broadcasting altogether through its own innovation. As I understand, "broadcast" originated from the "broad casting" of seeds. The Internet, on the other hand is bi-directional and interactive. It favors participation over consumption compared to television.
The means of distributing information really transitions when adoption is ubiquitous. Literacy and the printing press, radios, televisions, to PCs and smartphones. The physical later of the network of distribution changes with each transition.
These structures have inherent directionality and balance (or imbalance) in their nodes and connections that have some truly fascinating real-world results on the quality of how information travels, thrives or dies. The question of control and power also becomes an interesting network dynamic.
The Internet is surprisingly more spatial than other media networks. Websites can now provide a connection to actual virtual worlds. Herein, I think, lies the biggest innovation. Now Facebook, LinkedIn, Reddit and others have a method to try and reproduce or reinvent a virtual public square or public house!
Broadcast television requires a paid subscription to view online for NBC and ABC and CBS. There are a growing number of companies that I'm starting to see re-broadcast local broadcast TV on the web for free. It really ought to be illegal for these broadcast channels to charge for a digital copy of free broadcast television by all counts as far as I am concerned. I think that's completely backwards.
I also think that social media has largely replaced the public square. It's a gross distortion because of the the skewed shapes and control of these networks. Twitter has literally silenced a president (which I didn't protest), but it is worrisome how these networks can exert so much power over information.
To me, the real "PBS of the Internet" would have to exist as separate networks. I love the article's reference to libraries and other community centers, but I think it falls short in not suggesting something more along the lines of a community _network_ rather than another online service. Examples I would point to are the SNET in Cuba or the NYC Mesh Network. Here in Pittsburgh there is a growing PittMesh network.
I think by creating something controlled and owned by the community that uses it, you decentralize information. This, I think, would encourage local news over conspiracy theories and perhaps provide a sheltering proxy to the the global web.
What an exciting topic. VR feels like a whole other story haha
If anyone would like to read some of my thoughts on these topics, I'd love for you to check some of my writing and leave a comment there. I love thinking about this stuff: https://l-o-o-s-e-d.net/public-internet