6 ms·

It's amusing to read the alarmism in this article, on bbc.co.uk, while keeping in mind that the UK already filters, surveils, and blocks websites nationwide and

It's amusing to read the alarmism in this article, on bbc.co.uk, while keeping in mind that the UK already filters, surveils, and blocks websites nationwide and has statutes to censor sites that advocate against the monarchy or "imagine the death" of the queen.[1] [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_United_Kingdom#Politics_and_extremism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_Uni...

pertymcpert 9y ago
What's your point? Should the BBC which is an independent news organisation just not publish this article?
- msla 9y ago
  Independent as in funded by taxes the government collects. Independence from your source of income is truly impressive. I doubt any other news organ manages it.
  - rwmj 9y ago
    The UK government doesn't collect the BBC license fee.
    - msla 9y ago
      Only because the BBC has a special place in the law: > In 1991, the BBC assumed the role of TV Licensing Authority with responsibility for the collection and enforcement of the licence fee.[5] The BBC is authorised by the Communications Act 2003 to collect and enforce the TV licence fee. Section 363 of the Act makes it against the law to install or use a television receiver to watch or record any television programmes as they’re being broadcast without a TV Licence. Section 365 of the same Act requires the payment of the TV Licence fee to the BBC. That hardly makes the case the BBC is Fully Independent from the British Government, which is what is being discussed here.
      - am1988 9y ago
        Their money source is as protected from the government as it reasonably can be. Really, the alternative is you have them beholden to billionaire owners and advertisers. This is why I like the idea of a (properly funded) public news source, just not as the only source of news.
        msla 9y ago
        > Their money source is as protected from the government as it reasonably can be. Obviously false. > Really, the alternative is you have them beholden to billionaire owners and advertisers. Or have them run as a non-profit which doesn't accept advertising and instead takes donations from a huge variety of sources, including the people who watch it. Don't pretend there are no other funding models. Don't pretend the fact the government has a strong hand in their funding doesn't impact what they consider to be newsworthy.
        am1988 9y ago
        > Obviously false. Justify this. The funding is legislated into place in such a way that they are not subject to the whims of a new budget. Removing it would require actually changing the law, which ensures that a government trying to do so is subject to scrutiny. That seems about as good as you can reasonably expect. > Don't pretend there are no other funding models. I didn't. Don't put words in my mouth.
        msla 9y ago
        > That seems about as good as you can reasonably expect. ... assuming you want the news to be government-funded and, therefore, government-run. Some of us see a problem in that.
    - gozur88 9y ago
      Oh? What happens if you refuse to pay it?
      - rwmj 9y ago
        What happens if you hack your cable and get free service, then are found out?
        gozur88 9y ago
        There's a difference between actively stealing service and owning a television. It's not like BBC is the only thing available in the UK.
        pertymcpert 9y ago
        You can own a TV and not pay a TV license, it's not a problem.
        gozur88 9y ago
        In theory that's true. In practice it really isn't.
        pertymcpert 9y ago
        Yes it is. I have a TV. I don't pay TV license. I don't know how I can prove to you though. I haven't had a TV license for a few years actually. Never been bothered beyond the occasional letter.
plandis 9y ago
I'm curious -- are you a Chinese national? I feel like I keep seeing userXYZ's posting pro-China whataboutism every chance possible.
- user982 9y ago
  In 446 days I've made posts in 3 China-related threads, total. Including this one.
- dnh44 9y ago
  I really don't think using rhetoric like "whataboutism" as a distraction when someone points out some sort of hypocrisy promotes conversation in any useful way.
  - mercer 9y ago
    I'd agree in general, but I have noticed that particular topics have a way of provoking a lot of comments that do seem 'suspicious'. I've found that while in practice these comments are often by otherwise somewhat acceptable HN commenters and not shills, they are often noticeably more partisan/controversial/low-quality than their other comments. Specifically, this seems to happen with discussions that involve particular nation states (India, Turkey, Russia, Serbia, China are at the top of my list), as well as particular topics (gender, Trump, socialism/capitalism, etc.). While I do agree that pointing this out violates the principle of charity and possibly hurts the conversation, it's still a 'dynamic' that kind of stands out. EDIT: this is more of a general 'observation', not necessarily applicable to this particular thread.
    - dnh44 9y ago
      But those are all potentially controversial topics and people can get a bit passionate about things especially if they hold an opinion contrary to whatever is considered mainstream. Especially on topics that have massive media focus. But that's healthy isn't it? Especially in a place like this that has a higher than average level of discussion. And really so what if someone is actually a paid shill? If they can hold a reasonable discussion to get their point across and perhaps even enlighten me to something I was ignorant of then I welcome them. In reality I imagine a paid shill would work off of some sort of set of talking points that gets pushed to an entire team but even in this case civil discussion should be able to tear apart what are likely to be fairly weak arguments.

pertymcpert 9y ago

What's your point? Should the BBC which is an independent news organisation just not publish this article?

msla 9y ago
Independent as in funded by taxes the government collects. Independence from your source of income is truly impressive. I doubt any other news organ manages it.
- rwmj 9y ago
  The UK government doesn't collect the BBC license fee.
  - msla 9y ago
    Only because the BBC has a special place in the law: > In 1991, the BBC assumed the role of TV Licensing Authority with responsibility for the collection and enforcement of the licence fee.[5] The BBC is authorised by the Communications Act 2003 to collect and enforce the TV licence fee. Section 363 of the Act makes it against the law to install or use a television receiver to watch or record any television programmes as they’re being broadcast without a TV Licence. Section 365 of the same Act requires the payment of the TV Licence fee to the BBC. That hardly makes the case the BBC is Fully Independent from the British Government, which is what is being discussed here.
    - am1988 9y ago
      Their money source is as protected from the government as it reasonably can be. Really, the alternative is you have them beholden to billionaire owners and advertisers. This is why I like the idea of a (properly funded) public news source, just not as the only source of news.
      - msla 9y ago
        > Their money source is as protected from the government as it reasonably can be. Obviously false. > Really, the alternative is you have them beholden to billionaire owners and advertisers. Or have them run as a non-profit which doesn't accept advertising and instead takes donations from a huge variety of sources, including the people who watch it. Don't pretend there are no other funding models. Don't pretend the fact the government has a strong hand in their funding doesn't impact what they consider to be newsworthy.
        am1988 9y ago
        > Obviously false. Justify this. The funding is legislated into place in such a way that they are not subject to the whims of a new budget. Removing it would require actually changing the law, which ensures that a government trying to do so is subject to scrutiny. That seems about as good as you can reasonably expect. > Don't pretend there are no other funding models. I didn't. Don't put words in my mouth.
        msla 9y ago
        > That seems about as good as you can reasonably expect. ... assuming you want the news to be government-funded and, therefore, government-run. Some of us see a problem in that.
  - gozur88 9y ago
    Oh? What happens if you refuse to pay it?
    - rwmj 9y ago
      What happens if you hack your cable and get free service, then are found out?
      - gozur88 9y ago
        There's a difference between actively stealing service and owning a television. It's not like BBC is the only thing available in the UK.
        pertymcpert 9y ago
        You can own a TV and not pay a TV license, it's not a problem.
        gozur88 9y ago
        In theory that's true. In practice it really isn't.
        pertymcpert 9y ago
        Yes it is. I have a TV. I don't pay TV license. I don't know how I can prove to you though. I haven't had a TV license for a few years actually. Never been bothered beyond the occasional letter.

plandis 9y ago

I'm curious -- are you a Chinese national? I feel like I keep seeing userXYZ's posting pro-China whataboutism every chance possible.

user982 9y ago
In 446 days I've made posts in 3 China-related threads, total. Including this one.
dnh44 9y ago
I really don't think using rhetoric like "whataboutism" as a distraction when someone points out some sort of hypocrisy promotes conversation in any useful way.
- mercer 9y ago
  I'd agree in general, but I have noticed that particular topics have a way of provoking a lot of comments that do seem 'suspicious'. I've found that while in practice these comments are often by otherwise somewhat acceptable HN commenters and not shills, they are often noticeably more partisan/controversial/low-quality than their other comments. Specifically, this seems to happen with discussions that involve particular nation states (India, Turkey, Russia, Serbia, China are at the top of my list), as well as particular topics (gender, Trump, socialism/capitalism, etc.). While I do agree that pointing this out violates the principle of charity and possibly hurts the conversation, it's still a 'dynamic' that kind of stands out. EDIT: this is more of a general 'observation', not necessarily applicable to this particular thread.
  - dnh44 9y ago
    But those are all potentially controversial topics and people can get a bit passionate about things especially if they hold an opinion contrary to whatever is considered mainstream. Especially on topics that have massive media focus. But that's healthy isn't it? Especially in a place like this that has a higher than average level of discussion. And really so what if someone is actually a paid shill? If they can hold a reasonable discussion to get their point across and perhaps even enlighten me to something I was ignorant of then I welcome them. In reality I imagine a paid shill would work off of some sort of set of talking points that gets pushed to an entire team but even in this case civil discussion should be able to tear apart what are likely to be fairly weak arguments.