4 ms·

Do you think the rate of improvements in TV from 1930 to 2018 have been unacceptable? I'm not suggesting all of the social web become government controlled, I a

by theNJR 8y ago

Do you think the rate of improvements in TV from 1930 to 2018 have been unacceptable? I'm not suggesting all of the social web become government controlled, I am saying there should be a national public social channel. The public web would still innovative, but sometimes you just want NPR.

ConceptJunkie 8y ago
Government-controlled is only a positive if it means the government can control the thing better than private organizations, and this simply isn't the case. NPR and PBS have certainly done a lot of good stuff, stuff that at least at one time might not have been possible on commercial TV, but these media also suffer from the same kinds of bias that privately-run media suffer from, except it's on our dime. They are paid for, in part, by the public, but the public has no say in what they do. I simply can't imagine a government-controlled social channel being any better. There would be constant fights and protests over what is or is not allowed. Having to police such a channel for truly objectionable content (e.g., everyone reasonable would agree that racist hate speech shouldn't be allowed) will quickly become censorship (e.g., "MAGA" or "Feel the Bern" aren't allowed). It sounds like a slow-motion trainwreck coming from miles off. Twitter and other social media platforms have major problems by trying to reserve their rights to the benefits of being a publisher and the benefits of being carrier, but trying to dodge the disadvantages and responsibilities of either. There is absolutely no way a government-run version would be better, and many reasons why it would be worse. For one thing, by being a public "utility" everyone would (rightly) feel they should have a say in how it's run. Twitter sucks (and I don't use it), but it may be the best we can get right now. Anything better can probably only come from the market.
- dontagree2 8y ago
  > Government-controlled is only a positive if it means the government can control the thing better than private organizations I don't agree with that. There are a lot of reason why government-controlled things can be a positive, even if they aren't better than private versions of those things. Sometimes simply having access for all, even if the access isn't as high quality as private access is useful. Having access for people with disabilities when it's not in the financial interest of private companies to serve those people is useful, for example.

by theNJR 8y ago

ConceptJunkie 8y ago

Government-controlled is only a positive if it means the government can control the thing better than private organizations, and this simply isn't the case. NPR and PBS have certainly done a lot of good stuff, stuff that at least at one time might not have been possible on commercial TV, but these media also suffer from the same kinds of bias that privately-run media suffer from, except it's on our dime. They are paid for, in part, by the public, but the public has no say in what they do. I simply can't imagine a government-controlled social channel being any better. There would be constant fights and protests over what is or is not allowed. Having to police such a channel for truly objectionable content (e.g., everyone reasonable would agree that racist hate speech shouldn't be allowed) will quickly become censorship (e.g., "MAGA" or "Feel the Bern" aren't allowed). It sounds like a slow-motion trainwreck coming from miles off. Twitter and other social media platforms have major problems by trying to reserve their rights to the benefits of being a publisher and the benefits of being carrier, but trying to dodge the disadvantages and responsibilities of either. There is absolutely no way a government-run version would be better, and many reasons why it would be worse. For one thing, by being a public "utility" everyone would (rightly) feel they should have a say in how it's run. Twitter sucks (and I don't use it), but it may be the best we can get right now. Anything better can probably only come from the market.

dontagree2 8y ago
> Government-controlled is only a positive if it means the government can control the thing better than private organizations I don't agree with that. There are a lot of reason why government-controlled things can be a positive, even if they aren't better than private versions of those things. Sometimes simply having access for all, even if the access isn't as high quality as private access is useful. Having access for people with disabilities when it's not in the financial interest of private companies to serve those people is useful, for example.