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

TV detector vans once prowled the streets of England

hackaday.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

451–460 of 562 posts

Re: TV detector vans once prowled the streets of England

#451

Post by Chris2048 »

vixen99 wrote: post #352
cjrp wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their programmes quite often suffer from both-sidesism. They'll have a senior scientist on debating a conspiracy-theory-believing anti-vaxxer, as if they're both on the same level.

What's with this tendency to stick a binary label on every controversial issue? There are peer-reviewed valid concerns about these vaccines. Are the authors lumped into the anti-vaxxers category? Regularly watching BBC World I've yet to see the both-sideism you describe. As if on the same level? Well in relation to another bete noir, you'll likely get to see an interview with Greta T. (zero academic qualifications) w…

That's arguably not "both-sides-ism" so much as "straw-man-ism" if one side does not get the best representation.

That said, it depends on the demographic you want to represent.

Re: TV detector vans once prowled the streets of England

#452

Post by jeofken »

ookdatnog wrote: post #435
jeofken wrote: post #246

The state not punishing you for publishing is free speech. The state forcing you to pay for their publishing is forced speech. Working for a company like the BBC can not be ethical, if ethics are universal.

Your argument only works under the assumption that money=speech, a belief that doesn't hold up to much scrutiny. AFAIK, it's perfectly legal to speak in support of, say, an active terrorist organization. I doubt it is legal in many places to donate money to support an active terrorist organization. If you believe that money=speech, the law is inconsistent in this matter. Assuming you want the law to be consistent, th…

That’s a fair point!

The example should be voluntarily paying a writer to write what I deem truth worthy, vs the state threatening with violence if I refuse to pay for what they want me to pay for.

In my country Sweden the state media is very biased and paints my points of views in a bad light - but I am forced to fund them.

I encourage Americans here to cherish not having to have that.

Re: TV detector vans once prowled the streets of England

#453

Post by Spivak »

richardARPANET wrote: post #450
flower-giraffe wrote: post #211

I think the funding and governance (by Royal Charter) of the BBC have historically provided a huge benefit to society in the UK. Advertising free children’s TV (and radio) may have delayed the onset or rampant consumerism fuelled by commercial TV elsewhere. The BBC microcomputer project is arguably the origin of ARM CPU’s. Initially the license fee was for radios, I can’t find a reference but I remember being told as…

The BBC is a propaganda arm of the state, IMO they should be defunded significantly.

Would you say that about all state funded news or is the BBC uniquely worse?

Re: TV detector vans once prowled the streets of England

#454

Post by xxpor »

CodeGlitch wrote: post #433
seanalltogether wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've brought this argument forward many times since I moved to the UK, and everyone I've talked to hates the idea of turning the fee into a general tax. It's a weird refusal that I genuinely can't understand as someone not born here. Everyone seems happy enough with the idea of paying tax for public libraries or parks or other social institutions they may never use because it benefits society, but bring up the tv lic…

Have you seen how much BBC bosses and stars are paid? Far higher than other public servants, so yes I would be against making it compulsory https://www.taxpayersalliance.com/bbc_rich_list_2020_37_5m_b...

£148k? That really seems like not that much for any sort of executive.

Re: TV detector vans once prowled the streets of England

#455

Post by Silhouette »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #427
Mauricebranagh wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pay for placement is common in the USA and in films also why you don't often see baddies using apple products.

There’s placement, and then there’s altering the storyline and photography of a scene to achieve the goal of advertising a product. For example, there’s a difference in someone drinking a can of Coke, versus someone spending 30 seconds talking about how they love Coke, and adjusting the camera angles so that the Coke logo is always front and center. It’s possible to do product placement that doesn’t take you out of t…

I always laugh when lots of the US cop shows we get here in the UK have the good guys prominently using Microsoft equipment... to GOSUB their subroutine, or some similarly authentic "tech speak". With the new AI powered by Product Placement Of The Week, they can enhance the image and miraculously read the plate on the bad guys' vehicle!

Re: TV detector vans once prowled the streets of England

#456

Post by zajio1am »

bipson wrote: post #184
mytailorisrich wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If every household has to pay then it makes sense to abolish the tax and to fund it through the general budget instead, not least if the argument is that this is something that benefits society as a whole. Taxes are not free to manage and collect so this also provides cost savings. We have this debate periodically in the UK. The argument against abolishing the TV licence is usually that a dedicated tax ensures a larg…

Hm, at least in Austria and Germany the government cannot simply change the TV license fee "just because". Of course they ultimately can, but it is not that easy. It still makes a huge difference if money is distributed through the hands of the government, or dedicated 1:1.

> It still makes a huge difference if money is distributed through the hands of the government, or dedicated 1:1.

Not really. You can make it mandatory government expense by law, so it is not controlled by the government and its change would require changing the law, which is similar to changing the TV fee (which is also limited by law).

Re: TV detector vans once prowled the streets of England

#457

Post by omginternets »

>The United Kingdom is somewhat unique in the world for requiring those households which view broadcast television to purchase a licence for the privilege.

If we ignore the distinction between a license and a tax, France still levies a TV tax. I believe other European countries do this as well. The van is the unusual part, not the license fee.

Re: TV detector vans once prowled the streets of England

#458

Post by eplanit »

faceplanted wrote: post #443
eplanit wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Less toxic than law enforcement knocking on my door to see if I have a damn television. I'd rather reign in authoritarianism.

They're not law enforcement

So one can just tell them to f--- off and go away?

Re: TV detector vans once prowled the streets of England

#459

Post by antibuddy »

0xfaded wrote: post #432
ajsnigrutin wrote: post #428

> The United Kingdom is somewhat unique in the world for requiring those households which view broadcast television to purchase a licence for the privilege Not really, we have that in Slovenia too. In the past, you could avoid it by claiming you had no tv (and a grey-legal area of letting them verify). Then they expanded and added the "radio" part, where you paid less if you have a radio (and no tv), including car ra…

I live in Europe now, and I'm fine with high taxation. But for heaven's sake, call a tax a tax. There are so many little things, whether its TV licenses, overpriced interactions with the DNV equivalent, overpriced tolls that were promised to be eliminated. The list goes on. Fortunately most European countries have an awesome statistics office that gives visibility into government wastage. Unfortunately, the the socia…

A tax would be fairer than the actual system is. You have to pay a fixed amount regardless of your income. (At least in Germany and the UK)

Re: TV detector vans once prowled the streets of England

#460

Post by scotty79 »

faceplanted wrote: post #406
scotty79 wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if people will ever notice how socially and psychologically toxic is advertisement business and regulate it stringently.

People have clearly noticed the social and political issues with advertising for a very long time now. The issue is that it's hard to rally against one of the most lucrative businesses ever to exist that inherently has an extreme amount of messaging power to defend itself.

Have they defended themselves by appealing to public?

People mostly hate advertisements. I think they rather fight using money not public.

Post reply on HN