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

281–290 of 303 posts

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

#281

Post by raxxorrax »

jonas21 wrote: post #88

If 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…

This has become dogma that there is a large problem with misinformation.

Which information specifically do you think is so endemic, that it poses a danger? This isn't the case anywhere in my opinion.

But sure, give Bezos some tax breaks because he invested in the Washington Post... without it probably will become extremely poor.

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

#282

Post by raxxorrax »

hcarvalhoalves wrote: post #141
jonas21 wrote: post #88

If 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…

I don't think so. It may not be a value to you, but it remains a subjective valuation.

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

#283

Post by raxxorrax »

namlem wrote: post #279
babesh wrote: post #176

Earlier 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…

Centralized censorship is dangerous and should be avoided. However, a distributed system of gatekeepers (e.g. newspaper editors prior to the creation of the internet) has its benefits. Competition limits the power of censorship, but the censors still have enough power to keep certain ideas out of the mainstream. This has its downsides too, no doubt. Some of the ideas being suppressed were good ones, but there were be…

Newspapers today don't have the integrity to do that. They all suck the nipples of Facebook for ad money, many of their writers are preoccupied with pre-fed ideas. This is overall a terrible idea.

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

#284

Post by only_as_i_fall »

WalterBright wrote: post #185
only_as_i_fall wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have a more effective system in mind?

Nobody's ever come up with one, other than the free market. That's why the Constitution does not allow the government to limit free speech. I'm just pointing out the fallacy of the belief that it's the profit motive that leads to corruption. Even a casual review of history will amply show that government funded news is not independent journalism nor unbiased journalism.

Well maybe if we spend enough time pontificating about the theoretical corruption of imperfect solutions a better one will fall from the sky on a stone tablet.

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

#285

Post by jimmySixDOF »

A few posts here bring up the BBC and while it is an interesting case because they are so specifically funded by the public through a "TV License" [1], I think maybe a better comparison for this "Public Internet" should be to CSPAN.

Using the CSPAN model, a public good commons of internet services would be carved out through an offset program in Wireless Spectrum auctions and other Telecom Service Provider Licenses and renewals [2]. Maybe if they ever get around to the Big Tech Tax that could help too.

[1]

   You must have a TV Licence if you: watch or record programmes on a TV, computer or other device as they're broadcast. download or watch BBC programmes on iPlayer – live, catch up or on demand.

   £159 for a colour TV Licence and £53.50 for a black and white TV Licence
https://www.gov.uk/tv-licence

[2]

   C-SPAN is a private, nonprofit organization funded by its cable and satellite affiliates, and it does not have advertisements on any of its networks, radio stations, or websites, nor does it solicit donations or pledges.

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

#286

Post by babesh »

Retric wrote: post #275
babesh wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The drawdown from Afghanistan started 10 years ago. The last remnants leaving are largely symbolic from a cost and manpower standpoint. US soldiers killed in Afghanistan is a reasonable proxy for number of soldiers actively engaged, 2009: 310, 2010: 496, 2011: 412, 2012: 301, 2013: 120, 2014: 2014, 2015: 22, 2016: 14, 2017: 17, 2018: 15, 2019: 22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualt... Looking…

I don’t think this dismisses the cost and the strategic implications. The US/China rivalry was recognized even 10 years ago.

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

#287

Post by toomim »

Rapzid wrote: post #252
Mizza wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, this chart perfectly illustrates my original point. There is a great gaping hole in the upper right of that graph - there is no high-quality, right-skewed news, even though this is where I would assume just over half of the bulk of Americans would actually place their political beliefs. There's nothing of significance in between the Wall Street Journal and the New York Post, after which there is a steep cliff to…

Many possibilities for why this is apparently the case though. Could be a miss-match in who people identity/affiliate themselves with and where they actually land. Lot of talk of the "window" having moved in the passed decade. Possible middle-left bias ate up a bunch of those who would have been middle-right? A lot of moderate right pundits have landed at left biased orgs over the past years. Would be interesting to…

It could be that media corporations are in cities, which have become strongly leftist in the last few decades. The rural areas simply haven't had the density of human organization to create a reliable corporate media.

Another theory is that reliable corporate media is stocked with university graduates, and universities have also gone left.

> Would be interesting to see what this chart would have looked like 15-20 years ago.

Indeed, I think most of these were centrist news organizations 15 years ago!

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

#288

Post by d6ba56c039d9 »

dane-pgp wrote: post #198
d6ba56c039d9 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The underlying fallacy is the idea that politics has any conclusions at all. I'd say that there are certain flavors of political thought that have an unfolding utopia built into them. With enough of XXXism, an optimal state is reached. It's an exercise for the reader to determine which sorts of philosophy of human organization have that notion built-in.

Either your vagueness is intended to make the point that "both sides are just as bad as each other" (which is unhelpful because there are more than two sides to politics), or you're dogwhistling that it's "the other side" that has the terrible philosophy. Let me therefore try to clear up that ambiguity by offering a solution to your exercise: The most dangerous political philosophy is ethno-nationalism.

>you're dogwhistling that it's "the other side" that has the terrible philosophy.

I'm simply making the point that some political systems imply moving towards an ideal goal, others do not.

It isn't like monarchies (by far the most common setup) are moving towards some ideal beyond stability. Communism most certainly was viewed as a work in progress.

(side note: I'm sick of the term 'dog whistling'. That term itself implies a belief system.)

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

#289

Post by starkd »

gowld wrote: post #110
starkd wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A politician you can theoretically "vote out of office" can be more insidious than big business ever could. Regarding a politician, only collective action can remedy the situation. At least, with business, you get immediate remedy by going elsewhere. And maybe eventual long term remedy if enough people do likewise. Of course, even big business can become too big as to stifle competition.

I can't stop Facebook from poisoning my neighbors' minds by boycotting. In fact, boycotting is worse than joining the platform and engaging.

Whether or not anyone is poisoning anyone's mind is an opinion. It also assumes those minds don't have agency and the ability to discuss issues on their own terms.
Post reply on HN