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

The Push for a “PBS for the Internet”

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 303 posts

Re: The Push for a “PBS for the Internet”

#261

Post by spfzero »

dragontamer wrote: post #226
babesh wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

They never needed American recruits. This is a sideshow. There are many millions of non-Americans in the world to recruit from, and many non-internet ways to do it.

Re: The Push for a “PBS for the Internet”

#263

Post by [deleted] »

babesh wrote: post #214
dragontamer wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

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…

[deleted]

Re: The Push for a “PBS for the Internet”

#264

Post by babesh »

b0tzzzzzzman wrote: post #249
babesh wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What are the bigger fish? Could you elaborate?

There are articles on the Internet that say that the US is withdrawing to focus on the great powers competition (basically China). It doesn’t have the extra resources to burn on Afghanistan and Iraq anymore. The US has also drawn down troops from Iraq.

Re: The Push for a “PBS for the Internet”

#265

Post by gwright »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #250
Wolfenstein98k wrote: post #200

Earlier 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.

Also, I consistently hear NPR play the same game as the NYT: reach out to mythical "real America" voters, interview them, be tolerant of their perspectives even if the overall context is unfavorable towards conservative/reactionary/regressive viewpoints. You can practically hear the hosts' backs crack as they bend over backwards to try to be pleasant to both these interview subjects, and/or their intellectual leading…

I feel like your definition of "left" and my definition of "left" aren't even remotely equivalent.

It seems that much of our public debate is hobbled by an outstanding lack of consensus regarding what is meant by many political terms: right, left, conservative, progressive, liberal, capitalism, fascism, democracy, socialism, and so on.

I don't mention this as a way to suggest your definition is incorrect but just to point out how difficult it is to have a coherent discussion when basic terms are ill-defined.

Re: The Push for a “PBS for the Internet”

#266

Post by gwright »

lsiebert wrote: post #111
fud7r7rgtf wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What actually qualifies as misinformation? I see lots of things these days that fall under that label that would simply have been called gossip in the past and covered from the perspective of exploring popular gossip.

Examples of Misinformation: scientifically debunked ideas like the idea vaccines cause autism Ideas with zero basis in reality like the idea that most or all mass shootings are actually faked using "crisis actors" Political conspiracy theories like the idea that Bernie Sanders would have been the democratic candidate for president, but was cheated by Hillary Clinton. Misrepresented ideas, like how certain people on t…

> Misrepresented ideas

The notion that "misrepresenting ideas" is a form of "misinformation" is chilling. It suggests that there is some privileged point of view regarding any given idea and that anything that contradicts that point of view is "misinformation".

Exactly how do you propose to determine what the correct representation is for any particular idea? Isn't it possible that some ideas are not credible and that criticism of them is legitimate? How do you propose to evaluate new ideas if they can't withstand criticism and competing ideas?

It is awfully convenient to be able to tag criticism of your ideas as "misrepresentation" and therefore "misinformation". It is just one step further to regulate the means of communication so that "misinformation" is prohibited, blocked, etc.

Ideas that can't be defended on their own merits but instead are perpetuated by ignoring, blocking, censuring, or disparaging competing ideas don't seem particularly sturdy to me.

Re: The Push for a “PBS for the Internet”

#267

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

gwright wrote: post #265
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, I consistently hear NPR play the same game as the NYT: reach out to mythical "real America" voters, interview them, be tolerant of their perspectives even if the overall context is unfavorable towards conservative/reactionary/regressive viewpoints. You can practically hear the hosts' backs crack as they bend over backwards to try to be pleasant to both these interview subjects, and/or their intellectual leading…

I feel like your definition of "left" and my definition of "left" aren't even remotely equivalent. It seems that much of our public debate is hobbled by an outstanding lack of consensus regarding what is meant by many political terms: right, left, conservative, progressive, liberal, capitalism, fascism, democracy, socialism, and so on. I don't mention this as a way to suggest your definition is incorrect but just to…

But the terms are not ill-defined.

They've been deliberately obfuscated by those with power and wealth, particularly in the USA since the Progressive period (roughly 1880-1920), when US capital got scared shitless that actua leftist politics might assume power in this country.

It is absolutely in the interest of existing power and wealth that these political concepts be fuzzy, misunderstood and hard to apply. Political scientists don't have much problem defining them in unambiguous ways, but our political culture is full of attempts to obscure their meaning.

I would agree that there's a legitimate argument about whether or not 1-dimensional axes are a useful way to talk about political ideas. There's a lot of merit in the 2D approach that many libertarians like to use. But that doesn't change the fact that these terms are well quite well defined by those who understand the subject matter, and deliberately obfuscated by those who see problems if people were to really understand the differences and purposes of the ideas described by these terms.

Re: The Push for a “PBS for the Internet”

#268

Post by dan_quixote »

jbluepolarbear wrote: post #55
duxup wrote: post #7

Well there is: https://www.pbs.org/video/ Also PBS has a great kids games app(s) that are free with games that are fun / no ads. And PBS kids video app is again free, great content, no ads. If you're in the US and care about that content, I suggest contributing to your local station. The quality of the content from kids to adult is outstanding. It's not usual for me to browse a few streaming services and just end up…

The pbs apps are made by OPB (Oregon public broadcasting) they’ve been a big partner of pbs for a long time. The apps are really good and they try to keep relevant content and popular shows on the apps.

OPB is excellent. Oregon Field Guide is just so good. As a Seattle resident, I'm a bit jealous that Oregon has us beat with the outdoor programming. But a lot of their stories cross the state border. https://watch.opb.org/show/oregon-field-guide/

Re: The Push for a “PBS for the Internet”

#269

Post by marto1 »

devwastaken wrote: post #4
1-6 wrote: post #2

If we just focus on video just a sec and not the ENTIRE INTERNET, PBS seems increasingly irrelevant in an era where YouTube has narrowed the gap between content creators and content consumers. I remember the 90's being filled with pledge drives so PBS can raise funding. The content was good at the time but it's no where near what YouTube has become. If we go back to this original article linked, who gets to decide wh…

Problem is quality. "YouTube kids" is a big meme, because some of the most popular content creators were certainly not creating kid friendly content. Example being "spiderman and Elsa". In my opinion kids should not be on the internet. Not that we can reasonably stop them, but I don't at all believe YouTube is an equivalent to directed quality content like PBS.

Yes, correct. Only good solution I know about this is parents providing a manually curated library of media to their kids.

Having more tools to easily achieve this would be great.

Re: The Push for a “PBS for the Internet”

#270

Post by satellite2 »

Nasrudith wrote: post #205
satellite2 wrote: post #187

Everyone here discuss a new online newspaper. It would be refreshing to get intelligent content for free and not hidden between an amrmada of paywalls but would not be not enough. At this point, to protect democracy and its values, full fledged state sponsored reverse troll farms are what we desperatly need. A lot of the engagement is simply led by fake accounts piloted by humans and thus realistic enough to break th…

So what would the difference be between the two again and why should we trust "our" state sponsored troll farms? Frankly that logic is like suggesting we need to molest our kids at home to protect them from being molested by teachers and clergy.

That's if you believe there is nothing that clearly distiguish intrinsically antidemocratic and divisive ideas from otherwise. I believe there is a huge space of ideas that are clearly worth defending at all cost without ever being partisan.

I understand your metaphor but I think it's closer to the paradox of intolerance, you generally escape it only by having to be intolerant to the most intolerant.

Post reply on HN