12 ms·

Without restricting speech too much or engaging in substantial censorship perhaps it would be a good thing to start discussing what exactly differentiates news

Without restricting speech too much or engaging in substantial censorship perhaps it would be a good thing to start discussing what exactly differentiates news from entertainment and start saying who can call what what. Many countries do similar things with foods, in terms of defining exactly what, say, cheese is and must contain. Perhaps labelling laws for entertainment might be helpful in preventing people from consuming too much entertainment disguised as what most people would consider to be news. Of course, you can imagine how difficult it will be to implement but just because something is hard doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about it.

ClintEhrlich 11y ago
That sounds extremely counterproductive. At the point where you are letting the government mandate warning labels on political advocacy, you are by definition delegating authority for the absolute prohibition of that same speech, subject only to an exception when government-approved content requirements are complied with. Think about this as an algorithm: Try to imagine all of the security flaws that are jumping out at you. What if an actor trying to subvert the system chose to require content warnings that were significantly longer than the ensuing speech? What if the warnings mandated displaying horrific images or ear piercing noises? There are virtually infinite ways to abuse this authority and convert it into a veritable license to ban opposition speech. Allowing the government to ban certain speech right now is terrifying enough, but it's at least limited by fairly objective and reassuring judicial safeguards. What kinds of standards could possibly be durable enough to codify regarding which kinds of political speech can be required to bear which labels? What about what kinds of content the labels can be required to include? The permutations are endless; there's simply no practical way to prevent leaky abstraction. The system will eventually fail. When that's just normal hardware, it's a pain in the ass to fix. But when the substrate upon which you're operating is modern civilization, you probably won't even get the chance — your first mistake will be humanity's last.
- justinjlynn 11y ago
  well, I am not saying that warning labels of that sort should be placed on speech. What I mean is that it is extremely difficult to know the biases. What I am attempting to articulate, perhaps not that well, is that a media outlet claiming to be 'fair and balanced' should have to articulate what that means and how it effects their reporting and how they frame their stories. News should mean just that, presenting advocacy as neutral information reporting is also counter-productive for the viewer.
  - justinjlynn 11y ago
    Perhaps I should say this: I don't mean content should be restricted or censored in any way. My point is that in order to call one's entertainment 'news' one should probably show that one is independent of what is being reported. In today's media climate that is rarely if ever the case. No one says Kraft can't sell velveeta, one just says that Kraft has to call it 'processed cheese food product' and not just cheese. 'Mayonnaise' must contain eggs... etc. This isn't about preventing people from selling things, this is about not misleading consumers in a free market about what they're buying and consuming.
  - ClintEhrlich 11y ago
    Re: Your non-compliance with federal idea labeling standards during your recent attempt to engage in hatefully misleading speech or non-speech conduct and/or omissions U.S. Department of Belief Management Federal Bureau of Satirical Objectivity 948 Pennsylvania Ave, N.S. Washington, D.C. 205353 November 19, 2035 To: The Individu(als) (K)n(o)wn As "justinjlynn" and His Compatriots on the News Hacker Worldwide Internet-Web-Sub-Forums Under the authority of Acting Military President Trump's Imperial Battlefield Edict 17-A, dated January 32, 2037, Subdivision 7: Unconventional formatting in civil, substantive discussions, and pursuant to Title 27, United States Code (U.S.C.) Section 2488 of the Electronic Communications Objectivity Act, as amended September 28, 2015, you are hereby directed to provide to the Federal Bureau Federal Bureau of Satirical Objectivity the (FBFBSO) the subscriber's name, address, length of service, and electronic communications transactional records, to include existing transactional/activity logs and all electronic mail (e-mail) header information (not to include message content and/or subject fields), for the below-listed class of address holders: All individuals who were exposed to so-called "news" communications that depicted Donald John Trump as an entertainer and/or politician, rather than as a Nobel-prize winning trichologist. While fulfilling your obligations under this letter, do not disable, suspend, lock, cancel or interrupt service to the above described subscriber(s) accounts. A service interruption or degradation may alert the subscribers that investigative action is being taken. If you are not able to fulfill your obligations under this letter without alerting the subscriber/account user, contact the FBFBSO prior to proceeding. In accordance with Title 56 U.S.C. Section 9847(p), I certify that the information sought is relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against deceptive presentations of implied objectivity and/or newsiness, and that such investigation of U.S. Americans is not conducted solely on the basis of activities protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. In accordance with Title 19 U.S.C. Section 23, Fourth Column, Fifth Pajamagram 29-A, Amended Sub-Meta-Heading, I certify that the fairness, objectivity, and wholesomeness of the American public sphere would be, to a moderate possibility of truthiness, distorted and defiled if this post were to be downvoted, particularly on the hyper-technical and humorless meta-not-getting (or maybe just meta-getting-way-the-hello-too-much) ground that H.N. posts aren't supposed to ask for votes, which FBFBSO is not doing, judge. In accordance with 198 U.S.C. 4984, you have a right to challenge this letter if compliance would be unreasonable, oppressive, barbaric, or otherwise unlawful and the right to challenge the non-downvoting requirements set forth above. In accordance with Ottawa Department of Motor Vehicles Convention, Title IVL: Surreal Civility, unlawful failure to comply with this letter which has no legal authority, all unlawful failure to comply with the express or implied instructions, expectations, hopes, and/or dreams of an FBFBSO officer may result in one or more non-United States Federal Government Organizations pursuing the drafting and dissemination of precision-weighted counter-programming to ensure a fair and accurate balance of information within the noosphere. Any questions you have regarding this request should be directed only to the FBFBSO and or its corporate parents, including but without limitation, AOL-Time-WhatsApp. Due to paradoxical security considerations, you should neither discuss nor disclose the existence of this letter to any person at any time for any reason, unless absolutely necessary to reverse causality to original position. Your greatest discretion in this matter is greatly appreciated. And expected. Sincerely, Clint Ehrlich Deputy FBFBSO Commissioner for Football Operations, Kansas City Trumps, NFL Eurasia Expansion League, Siberia Exhibition Division Irkutsk Oblast, Russia, 34 << Lake the Baikal >> 39 п.Хужир Ольхонский, 666137
pdkl95 11y ago
> what exactly differentiates news from entertainment It's probably worth pointing out that many channels already label their shows that people think of as "news" as part of their entertainment offerings. Last time I checked (several years ago), the only show that Fox (FNC) called "news" was the brief 30min (or was it 60min?) segment in a terrible mid-morning (~10:30AM) time slot. While most of the cable "news" channels are similar (to varying degrees), this distinction was a core element of how Fox would push their propaganda memes ("taking points"). The "real news" show in the morning would make a vague report that technically stated some of the facts of the story, but generally left it vague. This was done so the afternoon pundits could make wild claims (the propaganda) that blatantly misrepresents the story, by drawing self-serving inferences from the earlier story. This was disguised by claiming "Sources say ...", conveniently leaving out that the same people often were those "sources". The evening entertainment-show-with-a-news-like-name now had multiple "sources" to draw from, continuing the reinforcement.
- scrollaway 11y ago
  The only source I can find to up this claim is http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/06/28/1103852/-Breaking-Murdoch-splits-empire-places-Fox-News-in-Entertainment-Division http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/06/28/1103852/-Breaking-M... - and it talks not about the time slot but the classification of the company. I dislike fox news more than the next guy, but you talk about sources without providing any, that's not cool.

ClintEhrlich 11y ago

That sounds extremely counterproductive. At the point where you are letting the government mandate warning labels on political advocacy, you are by definition delegating authority for the absolute prohibition of that same speech, subject only to an exception when government-approved content requirements are complied with. Think about this as an algorithm: Try to imagine all of the security flaws that are jumping out at you. What if an actor trying to subvert the system chose to require content warnings that were significantly longer than the ensuing speech? What if the warnings mandated displaying horrific images or ear piercing noises? There are virtually infinite ways to abuse this authority and convert it into a veritable license to ban opposition speech. Allowing the government to ban certain speech right now is terrifying enough, but it's at least limited by fairly objective and reassuring judicial safeguards. What kinds of standards could possibly be durable enough to codify regarding which kinds of political speech can be required to bear which labels? What about what kinds of content the labels can be required to include? The permutations are endless; there's simply no practical way to prevent leaky abstraction. The system will eventually fail. When that's just normal hardware, it's a pain in the ass to fix. But when the substrate upon which you're operating is modern civilization, you probably won't even get the chance — your first mistake will be humanity's last.

justinjlynn 11y ago
well, I am not saying that warning labels of that sort should be placed on speech. What I mean is that it is extremely difficult to know the biases. What I am attempting to articulate, perhaps not that well, is that a media outlet claiming to be 'fair and balanced' should have to articulate what that means and how it effects their reporting and how they frame their stories. News should mean just that, presenting advocacy as neutral information reporting is also counter-productive for the viewer.
- justinjlynn 11y ago
  Perhaps I should say this: I don't mean content should be restricted or censored in any way. My point is that in order to call one's entertainment 'news' one should probably show that one is independent of what is being reported. In today's media climate that is rarely if ever the case. No one says Kraft can't sell velveeta, one just says that Kraft has to call it 'processed cheese food product' and not just cheese. 'Mayonnaise' must contain eggs... etc. This isn't about preventing people from selling things, this is about not misleading consumers in a free market about what they're buying and consuming.
- ClintEhrlich 11y ago
  Re: Your non-compliance with federal idea labeling standards during your recent attempt to engage in hatefully misleading speech or non-speech conduct and/or omissions U.S. Department of Belief Management Federal Bureau of Satirical Objectivity 948 Pennsylvania Ave, N.S. Washington, D.C. 205353 November 19, 2035 To: The Individu(als) (K)n(o)wn As "justinjlynn" and His Compatriots on the News Hacker Worldwide Internet-Web-Sub-Forums Under the authority of Acting Military President Trump's Imperial Battlefield Edict 17-A, dated January 32, 2037, Subdivision 7: Unconventional formatting in civil, substantive discussions, and pursuant to Title 27, United States Code (U.S.C.) Section 2488 of the Electronic Communications Objectivity Act, as amended September 28, 2015, you are hereby directed to provide to the Federal Bureau Federal Bureau of Satirical Objectivity the (FBFBSO) the subscriber's name, address, length of service, and electronic communications transactional records, to include existing transactional/activity logs and all electronic mail (e-mail) header information (not to include message content and/or subject fields), for the below-listed class of address holders: All individuals who were exposed to so-called "news" communications that depicted Donald John Trump as an entertainer and/or politician, rather than as a Nobel-prize winning trichologist. While fulfilling your obligations under this letter, do not disable, suspend, lock, cancel or interrupt service to the above described subscriber(s) accounts. A service interruption or degradation may alert the subscribers that investigative action is being taken. If you are not able to fulfill your obligations under this letter without alerting the subscriber/account user, contact the FBFBSO prior to proceeding. In accordance with Title 56 U.S.C. Section 9847(p), I certify that the information sought is relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against deceptive presentations of implied objectivity and/or newsiness, and that such investigation of U.S. Americans is not conducted solely on the basis of activities protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. In accordance with Title 19 U.S.C. Section 23, Fourth Column, Fifth Pajamagram 29-A, Amended Sub-Meta-Heading, I certify that the fairness, objectivity, and wholesomeness of the American public sphere would be, to a moderate possibility of truthiness, distorted and defiled if this post were to be downvoted, particularly on the hyper-technical and humorless meta-not-getting (or maybe just meta-getting-way-the-hello-too-much) ground that H.N. posts aren't supposed to ask for votes, which FBFBSO is not doing, judge. In accordance with 198 U.S.C. 4984, you have a right to challenge this letter if compliance would be unreasonable, oppressive, barbaric, or otherwise unlawful and the right to challenge the non-downvoting requirements set forth above. In accordance with Ottawa Department of Motor Vehicles Convention, Title IVL: Surreal Civility, unlawful failure to comply with this letter which has no legal authority, all unlawful failure to comply with the express or implied instructions, expectations, hopes, and/or dreams of an FBFBSO officer may result in one or more non-United States Federal Government Organizations pursuing the drafting and dissemination of precision-weighted counter-programming to ensure a fair and accurate balance of information within the noosphere. Any questions you have regarding this request should be directed only to the FBFBSO and or its corporate parents, including but without limitation, AOL-Time-WhatsApp. Due to paradoxical security considerations, you should neither discuss nor disclose the existence of this letter to any person at any time for any reason, unless absolutely necessary to reverse causality to original position. Your greatest discretion in this matter is greatly appreciated. And expected. Sincerely, Clint Ehrlich Deputy FBFBSO Commissioner for Football Operations, Kansas City Trumps, NFL Eurasia Expansion League, Siberia Exhibition Division Irkutsk Oblast, Russia, 34 << Lake the Baikal >> 39 п.Хужир Ольхонский, 666137

pdkl95 11y ago

> what exactly differentiates news from entertainment It's probably worth pointing out that many channels already label their shows that people think of as "news" as part of their entertainment offerings. Last time I checked (several years ago), the only show that Fox (FNC) called "news" was the brief 30min (or was it 60min?) segment in a terrible mid-morning (~10:30AM) time slot. While most of the cable "news" channels are similar (to varying degrees), this distinction was a core element of how Fox would push their propaganda memes ("taking points"). The "real news" show in the morning would make a vague report that technically stated some of the facts of the story, but generally left it vague. This was done so the afternoon pundits could make wild claims (the propaganda) that blatantly misrepresents the story, by drawing self-serving inferences from the earlier story. This was disguised by claiming "Sources say ...", conveniently leaving out that the same people often were those "sources". The evening entertainment-show-with-a-news-like-name now had multiple "sources" to draw from, continuing the reinforcement.

scrollaway 11y ago
The only source I can find to up this claim is http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/06/28/1103852/-Breaking-Murdoch-splits-empire-places-Fox-News-in-Entertainment-Division http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/06/28/1103852/-Breaking-M... - and it talks not about the time slot but the classification of the company. I dislike fox news more than the next guy, but you talk about sources without providing any, that's not cool.