35 ms·

Letters from House members to cable providers [pdf]

• delecti 6y ago
  Is there any difference between the ~12 copies of the same letter in this PDF? But to the point, this is chilling. The last administration started down a dangerous precedent of claiming some news sources were less entitled to their right to exist. Just because I happen to agree that the channels being targeted here are garbage doesn't mean I think we should allow the government to make that decision.
  • protomyth 6y ago
    Its a press release so each representative has to have their own letter so they can distribute it as a press release. It is fairly typical. Using the government to suppress opposing views is the very definition of tyranny. Anytime people talk about a "reset" the populace suffers.
  • AlphaWeaver 6y ago
    Each letter is going to a different provider - for example, one is to AT&T, one it to Amazon.
  • jodrellblank 6y ago
    It isn't really a precedent; from [1] "When consumers see or hear an advertisement, whether it’s on the Internet, radio or television, or anywhere else, federal law says that ad must be truthful, not misleading, and, when appropriate, backed by scientific evidence. The FTC enforces these truth-in-advertising laws, and it applies the same standards no matter where an ad appears – in newspapers and magazines, online, in the mail, or on billboards or buses" There already is a precedent for federal law mandating truth in information carried over media channels in specific situations. "That decision" you reference doesn't have to be a decision to drop/silence the media channel outright. The previous administration made continuous claims about fake news and media lies; if the current administration is talking about media disinformation and lies as well, that sounds like there's scope for a bi-partisan agreement[2] to hold media companies more accountable for "truth in reporting", like there are "truth in advertising" rules. Your position doesn't have to be "I agree these channels are garbage but in the interests of avoiding Facism all media should be allowed to lie without being held to account in any way". [1] https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/media-resources/truth-advertising https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/media-resources/truth-advert... [2] lol
• DyslexicAtheist 6y ago
  I suppose they mean disinfo and not misinfo? seems like a slippery slope when one can't trust their own people to be able to distinguish between facts/non-facts, so much that one needs laws to ban certain types of content and prevent it from being seen. makes me wonder if this will not even cause further conspiracy and drive traffic to alternative (underground e.g. outlawed) information channels pretty hard to draw a line especially in relation to satire/comedy etc. There is no point of irony/satire if it has to be labeled as such.
  • sleepysysadmin 6y ago
    >I suppose they mean disinfo and not misinfo? misinformation, disinformation, conspiracy theories, and lies PDF says all of the above. Obviously the democrats are the ones who will define what's a lie. Any Americans here think it's appropriate to allow the democrat party to define what's a lie and then have it censored? "Right-wing media outlets, like Newsmax, One America News Network (OANN), and Fox News" It's interesting that the democrat government is pressuring ATT to deplatform their political opponents. >seems like a slippery slope when one can't trust their own people to be able to distinguish between facts/non-facts, so much that one needs laws to ban certain types of content and prevent it from being seen. makes me wonder if this will not even cause further conspiracy and drive traffic to alternative (underground e.g. outlawed) information channels I have never in my life seen such a political divide in the USA. It's very much like during the Vietnam war. Afterall the USA has now been at war longer than it ever has been.
    • jodrellblank 6y ago
      > "Obviously the democrats are the ones who will define what's a lie How can you live through 4 years of President trump calling "fake news" and "lying media" about something at least every week, and then straight faced say "obviously the democrats are the ones who decide what's a lie"? > "Any Americans here think it's appropriate to allow the democrat party to define what's a lie and then have it censored?" Remember last year when Twitter fact-checked a tweet by President Trump and "In response, Trump threatened in a set of tweets Wednesday to “strongly regulate or close” down social-media platforms. He followed up by signing an executive order late Thursday that seeks to limit some of the broad liability protection social media companies have under federal law."?[1] Yeah, any americans think it would be bad if the Democrats did this? Hopefully. Any Republicans think it was actually bad when Republicans actually did this? People in this thread are saying that two members of Congress sending a letter is "chilling intimidation", compared to the President signing an executive order removing legal protections from social media companies? [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackbrewster/2020/05/27/close-them-down-trump-threatens-to-shut-down-social-media-platforms/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackbrewster/2020/05/27/close-t...
• BitwiseFool 6y ago
  "How many of your subscribers tuned in to Fox News, Newsmax, and OANN on U-verse, DirecTV, and AT&T TV for each of the four weeks preceding the November 3, 2020 elections and the January 6, 2021 attacks on the Capitol? Please specify the number of subscribers that tuned in to each channel." Does this strike anyone else as a nakedly partisan move?
  • SllX 6y ago
    Yes.
  • tanylak 6y ago
    Extremely
  • surge 6y ago
    It pretty much is and is a chilling attempt at limiting speech. Free press, is free press. CNN and MSNBC both spread their share of misinformation. You need to be able to watch multiple news sources with different takes in a free society, to determine whose wrong or whose omitting key facts in an attempt to frame the news.
    • hogFeast 6y ago
      When you think people disagree with you because they are evil, any action is justfiable (internally).
      • TrispusAttucks 6y ago
        It's even worse when you think people are evil simply because they disagree with you!
        • protonfish 6y ago
          What's even worse is when people are evil and nobody fights against them while they overthrow your government and commit genocide.
• runlevel1 6y ago
  There is no such demand in the PDF linked. EDIT: In case the title gets changed, it is currently "House Democrats Demand Cable Providers to Censor Misinformation [PDF]" EDIT 2: After all the downvotes, I looked again but still am not seeing it.
  • dd36 6y ago
    Why are you being downvoted? I don’t see it either.
  • AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
    This is correct. There is no per-se demand, but there is a strong suggestion of expectation that these networks should be exerting some kind of pressure against the misinformation in shows they carry. Frankly it still seems pretty ridiculous to me.
    • garg 6y ago
      Who do you think should exert pressure against networks that broadcast misinformation and propaganda to millions of people?
      • jolux 6y ago
        If anybody, it should be the public, not the government, from the perspective of constitutional law. In an ethical sense, I'm less sure, because I feel pretty certain that the networks named in these letters are harmful to the country and harmful to democracy, but I'm unsure about the relative costs in the long-term of government intervention here. The ruling party attacking opposition media is never a good look, no matter how toxic said media is.
        • arrosenberg 6y ago
          This is the United States - the government is the public.
• kodah 6y ago
  It's a letter to AT&T that encourages them to do something about Fox and OANN. I'd say sure, do something about them, but let's also look inward. There was a lot of misinformation abound after the Capitol Riots that was simply there to stir up Democrats and a lot of this information was very racially angled. Though Democrats play up the death of the Capital police officer now, their constituents were absolutely promoting conspiracy theories about the Capitol police doing nothing or the FBI intentionally not showing up. I won't begin to assess why conspiracy theories were abound when literal conspiracy theorists were invading the Capital, that's probably worth its own discussion. Put these concepts (racialized rhetoric and anti-police conspiracy theories) together and it's no wonder why the country broke for another day or two. If you want to clean up Fox and OANN, I'm down, but let's make sure you're cleaning up all the grass roots sources of your constituents misinformation too.
  • katmannthree 6y ago
    Would you be able to give specific examples of left-focused misinformation on the capitol riots, that is specific news articles from "trusted partisan" sources (CNN, etc) containing unsupported conspiracy theories?
    • opwieurposiu 6y ago
      The fire extinguisher attack turned out to be BS. https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/capitol-police-officers-death-remains-mired-in-conflicting-reports-and-official-silence-234807846.html https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/capitol-police-officers-...
      • katmannthree 6y ago
        Does that meet the standard for being an unverified conspiracy theory? It seems that the story came from a source they were keeping anonymous (fairly conventional in journalism, especially when reporting things in real time) and was promptly updated as more news came in. It's worth noting that there is fairly extensive video of an unhelmeted officer getting hit in the head with a fire extinguisher thrown during a brawl. I don't know if that officer has been identified as Sicknick or not, but that particular event (an officer getting hit in the head with a fire extinguisher) did happen. Separately, we know Sicknick did physically engage with the rioters, as the official US Capitol Police statement cited in the article you linked said "Officer Brian D. Sicknick passed away due to injuries sustained while on-duty." So, _a_ fire extinguisher attack did happen (among many other attacks on officers during the riot). An officer did die as a result of injuries sustained during the riot. An anonymous source linked those two events, a link which now appears to have been incorrect. News sites which covered the events in question have effectively released retractions and calls to wait for more evidence. What more would you want them to do? They can only report on the facts as known at the time, and release updates if those later change. Both of those things were done. This is an entirely different situation from Fox and OANN alleging massive conspiracies and voter fraud and continuing to hold that position for political reasons despite a lack of evidence.
• citilife 6y ago
  This is such a dangerous game to play. CNN knowingly misleads the public every single day. It's effectively public knowledge if anyone cares to investigate themselves. Going after FOX because the ruling party disagrees with them, but leaving CNN alone is the definition of authoritarian, regardless of your views. You can't single out voices. Further, who owns CNN? (Turner Broadcasting System) Who owns Turner Broadcasting System? (WarnerMedia) Who owns WarnerMedia? (AT&T) Interesting... so AT&T is being lobbied not to carry its competition, while leaving its own broadcasting alone.
  • ntsplnkv2 6y ago
    Trump continually attacked the media, Trump literally said the media was the enemy of the people. He would ignore questions from other agencies, even those without bias. Until people in their own parties start standing up for principled government it will never change. Unsurprisingly, downvoted for stating facts once again - people are afraid to call a spade a spade.
    • buildbot 6y ago
      Reading these threads has been very depressing lately, Democrats ask OANN and other _extremely_ conservative networks for information, and that's somehow an attack on the First Amendment, where as 4 years of Trump - and the rest of the Republican party - attacking anything he disagreed with as Fake News was totally cool. Either Hacker news is being heavily astroturfed (there are many throwaway accounts participating here for example) or really that's what this community is now. I just keep a little personal list of usernames of people who are promoting Fascism and avoid anything they are associated with.
      • SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
        Respectfully, I don't really see anyone saying that false accusations of fake news were cool. I'm concerned that you might be stuck in a mindset of partisan battle, where anyone who expresses concerns about this letter is declaring themselves to be on the other team from the people who wrote it.
• gfodor 6y ago
  Pay attention.
• jspaetzel 6y ago
  This type of messaging only exacerbates any misinformation being spread. The only impact this could have is that right wing groups will have another real world example for fresh conspiracy theories. This pushes the divide wider.
  • dd36 6y ago
    So don’t collect data on disinformation?
• qntty 6y ago
  Is anyone else confused at how this is legal? I have no expertise in law, but my understanding is that the Supreme Court has agreed with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama that. > Racial discrimination in state-operated schools is barred by the Constitution and "[i]t is also axiomatic that a state may not induce, encourage or promote private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish." Lee v. Macon County Board of Education, 267 F. Supp. 458, 475-476 (MD Ala. 1967). Isn't this promoting a private person to accomplish what the federal government is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish? And wouldn't this also apply to the federal government as well as states? https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/108851/norwood-v-harrison/ https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/108851/norwood-v-harri...
  • kodah 6y ago
    There was nothing about race in this entire document.
    • qntty 6y ago
      Ignore the part about race.
    • finnthehuman 6y ago
      Court precedents are about the legal principals. When the supreme court rules on forth amendment matters in a murder case, the precedent also applies to drug cases.
  • noodles_nomore 6y ago
    Yes, Greenwald pointed out the same thing in a recent article: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/congress-escalates-pressure-on-tech https://greenwald.substack.com/p/congress-escalates-pressure... Edit: Another article just went up about exactly this. https://greenwald.substack.com/p/house-democrats-targeting-right-wing https://greenwald.substack.com/p/house-democrats-targeting-r...
    • qntty 6y ago
• tarboreus 6y ago
  Is anyone finding this terrifying? When did democrafts, the party I vote for, become the people calling for tight censorship in every sector? Weren't the last people to make this move (more more ineffectively, thankfully) the Christian right? Is there something we can do to stand up for speech?
  • rayiner 6y ago
    Democrats were proponents of free speech when Republicans controlled the media, culture, and institutions. Increasingly, the media, culture, and institutions are controlled by progressive Democrats (and I think there is a growing schism between liberals and progressives on this front), and traditional liberal ideas of the free exchange of information have no more value.
    • blacktriangle 6y ago
      Which is exactly why no matter where you land politically, you should be 100% in favor of fighting for free speech for yourself and the other side.
      • PTOB 6y ago
        This human has read his history.
      • Spivak 6y ago
        I think there’s a disconnect here. Does free speech have to include someone knowingly purposely spreading misinformation with the intent to deceive people? Or someone speaking with the explicit intent to harm another person? Because I think nobody should be able to silence your thoughts, ideas or opinions but those things don’t encompass all speech.
        • deleted 6y ago
          [deleted]
        • tarboreus 6y ago
• curiousllama 6y ago
  2 parts of this are interesting to me. The first is "House Democrats demand" - the government should not be regulating speech, even if it's false/dangerous/moronic. The letter is dumb and dangerous. The second is "Cable providers to censor misinformation" - infrastructure providers regulating speech sounds very similar to the whole Parler deplatforming. I wonder what my own reaction would be if cable companies independently kicked off (say) OANN after the Jan 6 riot. Is the private-to-private speech regulation ok?
  • garg 6y ago
    The government should be regulating the broadcast of false information that is blatant propaganda. Freedom of speech is not freedom to broadcast blatant lies to millions of people.
    • phkahler 6y ago
      In that case, all the media would be shut down.
      • deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
• saurik 6y ago
  So, one thing that is interesting to me here is that cable companies do choose which companies to allow as channels. Like, they aren't merely a dumb pipe to access the world of television, hopefully having a disregard for what customers watch, but instead take an active role in curating their catalog to choose channels and content that will be accessible to their customer base. Due to this, while I personally find the premise of this demand chilling, it more argues to me that cable companies almost deserve their fate here: I think it would be entirely fair to try to hold cable companies at least somewhat liable for all of the content broadcast on all of their channels. Like, arguably, to me, this feels the same as the Section 230 controversy, but since a cable company isn't an "interactive computer service" I guess they are left out in the cold. If you really believe in Section 230, maybe you feel like it should be expanded to cover this scenario. And, if not, maybe you feel like cable companies it's catalogs of channels should either 1) do tons of fine-grained limitations and/or filtering or 2) simply not exist so that people can get their information from an actual platform (which cable companies actually already provide anyway: the Internet).
• jolux 6y ago
  This title should be changed, it doesn't reflect the content of these letters. They do point in a concerning direction, but this is not a demand for censorship.
  • temp8964 6y ago
    " 4. What steps did you take prior to, on, and following the November 3, 2020 elections and the January 6, 2021 attacks to monitor, respond to, and reduce the spread of disinformation, including encouragement or incitement of violence by channels your company disseminates to millions of Americans? Please describe each step that you took and when it was taken. 5. Have you taken any adverse actions against a channel, including Fox News, Newsmax, and OANN, for using your platform to disseminate disinformation related directly or indirectly to the November 3, 2020 elections, the January 6, 2021 Capitol insurrection, or COVID-19 misinformation? If yes, please describe each action, when it was taken, and the parties involved. 6. Have you ever taken any actions against a channel for using your platform to disseminate any disinformation? If yes, please describe each action and when it was taken. 7. Are you planning to continue carrying Fox News, Newsmax, and OANN on U-verse, DirecTV, and AT&T TV both now and beyond any contract renewal date? If so, why? " Not a demand for censorship?
    • jolux 6y ago
      >Not a demand for censorship? No, those look like questions to me. A demand for censorship would be "stop carrying these channels." Such a demand may follow after these questions are answered, but do they not constitute a demand for censorship of themselves.
      • RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago
        and when the mafia boss says, “You have a beautiful family” he is only complimenting you.
        • jolux 6y ago
          That's not an argument.
• kogus 6y ago
  This intimidation is veiled as thinly as the skin of those in Congress. The misinformation and disinformation that is excreted from Fox, NewsMax, etc. is not nearly as repugnant as lawmakers who demand an explanation from private companies as to why they don't shield the innocent ears of voters from the specific version of sanitized truth that they'd prefer. The first amendment forbids Congress from restricting free speech by law. It doesn't forbid "pressure" of this sort. But it's worth noting that the authors of the first amendment engaged in campaigns that made today's "disinformation" look like a children's sticker book.[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/08/20/the-dirtiest-presidential-campaign-ever-not-even-close/?sh=75e853743d84 https://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/08/20/the-dirtie...
• njharman 6y ago
  Judging what is and is not misinformation must always be in the hands of the people. Never the hands of authorities whether those be government or corporate. Why must fight all censorship. Because once you allow "a thing" to be censored, it becomes possible to censor "any thing". Things in the past which were labeled misinformation and would have been suppressed for even longer (or forever) under current social attitudes of censoring anything that might make us feel bad. - Leaded gasoline poisoning all of the country. - Tobacco is addicting and gives you cancer. - Agent Orange caused US military health problems. - PTSD is a mental health issue (denied since at least WWI). Remember all the power/leeway you give to the "left" (or right) will also be misused when the "right" (or left) take power again.
  • omgwtfbyobbq 6y ago
    It's so far been in the hands of the courts, and like you said, they don't determine what's free speech based on whether something makes us feel bad. Per bhupy, their specific criteria is whether the speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action". If the misinformation on certain media outlets is considered by the courts to have incited the insurrection , then it may not be considered free speech.
    • rayiner 6y ago
      > If the misinformation on certain media outlets is considered by the courts to have incited the insurrection , then it may not be considered free speech. The legal standard for "inciting or producing imminent lawless action" is given by Brandenburg v. Ohio. In that case, which upheld speech openly advocating for violence against specific groups to be protected speech. It overturned an Ohio law that had been directed against communists who "advocated the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform." Brandenburg was a 9-0 Warren court decision. Courts will not uphold anything that has been said about the election as outside the boundaries of free speech, under Brandenburg.
      • 6y ago
• rayiner 6y ago
  The letter complains about Fox and OANN's partisan and inflammatory rhetoric, with supporting citations to sources on the left who trade heavily in partisan and inflammatory rhetoric. Just three citations in you get to Karen Attiah, Washington Post's Global Opinions Editor: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jun/29/karen-attiah-washington-post-editor-white-women-ar/ https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jun/29/karen-attia... > “White women are lucky that we are just calling them ‘Karen’s,’ and not calling for revenge,” Ms. Attiah tweeted to her 185,000 followers Sunday evening. > “Non, je ne regrette rien,” she wrote in another tweet, making it clear she had no regrets. Regarding misinformation, Rachel Maddow has suffered no negative consequences for jumping on every Trump-related conspiracy theory to pop up in the last four years: https://taibbi.substack.com/p/why-rachel-maddow-is-on-the-cover https://taibbi.substack.com/p/why-rachel-maddow-is-on-the-co... > From there, the floodgates opened. “Commentary television is not news,” snapped David Cay Johnston of the New York Times, himself just days removed from saying on Democracy Now! that “I think [Trump] is a Russian agent.” > He added: “Rachel Maddow in particular has certainly pushed the Mueller matter,” doing so in conjunction with “the facts at the time.” However, he said, her work was “driven by the commercial values of television.” It's fair to say that Maddow has an opinion show, not a news show. But that distinction doesn't seem to matter to the Congresspeople who wrote the letter here--they suggest censoring Fox News, which accurately reported the election results and Supreme Court developments. The conspiracy theories, such as they were, came from some of the opinion hosts. Make no mistake. Whether it's "inflammatory" speech or "misinformation"--these rules will not be applied even-handedly. Such rules are not even amenable to even-handed application.
  • jolux 6y ago
    >I don't really care what inflammatory things people post in their free time. But make no mistake that there will be double standards in how these rules will be applied. This seems like a red herring though? These letters are talking about the statements that news sources make as official outlets, to which you're comparing statements an individual makes (presumably) on her own time. I don't deny that there's a potential for double standards here, but I think you would have to show that misinformation in the Washington Post is comparable to misinformation on OANN or Newsmax to show that one is being applied in this instance.
• ncw96 6y ago
  Worth noting that these letters are from two relatively low ranking members of the House Democratic caucus, not from anyone in leadership.
  • mnouquet 6y ago
    Merely useful pawns, I wonder what's they have been promised.
  • fullshark 6y ago
    Worth noting that one of these members is the representative for CA-18 (Eshoo) which includes parts of silicon valley: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California%27s_18th_congressional_district https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California%27s_18th_congressio...
• asterialite 6y ago
  I think the crux of the issue is not freedom of speech, but rather determining what counts as harmful disinformation. I imagine we all agree that disinformation should be curbed; the point of contention is precisely where we should draw the line. The violent, seditious sentiments present in America today are a direct result of people being permitted to pander dangerous lies with no consequences, lies which have caused deaths, and will cause more. If the GOP had not been able to lie about election fraud, the Capitol attack might not have happened. At the same time, it's hard to draw the line between a mere falsehood and a dangerous one. In hindsight we can tell that a conspiracy theory claiming that the world is controlled by a cabal of Jewish pædophiles with space lasers is dangerous, but what about when it was new? In a democracy with a variety of views, it is hard for there to be government-sanctioned truths. Without wanting to be too cynical, it's also worth pointing out that there's lots of precedent for the government stripping minorities of their rights in the name of national security. The only difference here is that the minority being targeted happens to be White.
  • macspoofing 6y ago
    >I imagine we all agree that disinformation should be curbed Who decides what is 'disinformation' or 'misinformation'? You? The Democratic representatives? Jack Dorsey? No thanks. I think I'd like to make up my own mind. Your politics also shine through your comment which also betrays your biases. Free speech is hard when it's speech you don't like and used by your political opponents .. isn't it.
    • asterialite 6y ago
      > Who decides what is 'disinformation' or 'misinformation'? You? The Democratic representatives? Jack Dorsey? No thanks. You are restating what I said almost word for word — but still disagreeing. Somehow. Everyone probably agrees that disinformation must be curbed; not everyone agrees on what exactly disinformation is. You seem to think I'm biased against Republicans. This is the case. You seem to be biased against Democrats. That is the point. We have biases, and as such cannot agree on what the objective truth really is. That's why determining whether something is true, misinformation, or disinformation is hard.
• CivBase 6y ago
  > Experts have noted that the right-wing media ecosystem is “much more susceptible...to disinformation, lies, and half-truths.” Citation from the PDF: https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/oso/9780190923624.001.0001/oso-9780190923624 https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/o... That book does not cite any evidence for that assertion. Here's the relevant excerpt: > IN THE PRECEDING three chapters we examined the propaganda feedback loop, how it forms, and how it facilitates disinformation and the manipulation of beliefs of a population. But our observations about the highly asymmetric nature of the American media environment, and the survey-based evidence we described in Chapter 2, which suggests that no more than 30 percent of the American population inhabits the insular, propaganda-rich right-wing media ecosystem, indicate that whatever one thinks of the result of the 2016 election, it could not have been purely the result of right-wing propaganda. Here, we identify two central attributes of mainstream media and professional journalism—balance and the scoop culture—that shaped election coverage, and in some cases made them particularly susceptible to being manipulated into spreading right-wing propaganda. > As a violent mob was breaching the doors of the Capitol, Newsmax’s coverage called the scene a “sort of a romantic idea.” That's not misinformation. That's just a dumb opinion. > Fox News, meanwhile, has spent years spewing misinformation about American politics. Citation from the PDF: https://www.vox.com/recode/22219026/fox-news-riot-capitol-maga-carlson-hannity https://www.vox.com/recode/22219026/fox-news-riot-capitol-ma... That article is all about how Fox News has been talked for months after the election about how it "could have been stolen" (emphasis from Vox). It also speculates about Fox News's strategy going forward. That is not even close to "years spewing misinformation about American politics". > A media watchdog found over 250 cases of COVID-19 misinformation on Fox News in just one five-day period Citation from the PDF: https://www.mediamatters.org/coronavirus-covid-19/fox-news-pushed-coronavirus-misinformation-253-times-just-five-days https://www.mediamatters.org/coronavirus-covid-19/fox-news-p... These sorts of counting articles always rub me the wrong way. They count multiple instances of the same misinformation and tend to play fast and loose with the definition of "misinformation" to get the count as high as possible. Of the few cases cited in the article, most of them are dumb opinions and baseless conjectures. > and economists demonstrated that Fox News had a demonstrable impact on non-compliance with public health guidelines Citation from the PDF: https://doi.org/10.3386/w27237 https://doi.org/10.3386/w27237 From the cited study: > Meanwhile, Fox News maintained its stance against the lockdown and SD and, in April, a “slew of Fox News opinion hosts and anchors [were] pushing back on public health experts and urging President Donald Trump to abandon its social distancing policies and reopen the economy” (Relman, 2020). Therefore, our Fox News effects arise and persist throughout a period when Fox News repeatedly broadcast anti-SD content that was contrary to the recommendations of the White House. The study itself attributes Fox News's influence on non-compliance to their disagreements regarding lockdown and social distancing policies. The study accuses Fox News of broadcasting misinformation by virtue of sharing disagreements with the recommendations of health experts.
• temp8964 6y ago
  Flagged. Lol. Because the letters didn't use the exact words "demand", "censor". Haha.
  • dang 6y ago
    You broke the site guidelines with that title, which was neither accurate nor neutral (see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26240472 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26240472). Using titles to editorialize isn't "haha", it's against the rules and will cause you to lose submission privileges on HN. That goes double for divisive, inflammatory topics like this one. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful. I've changed the title and turned off the flags because (a) this is an interesting new phenomenon in the sense of the HN guidelines, and (b) the thread is fortunately not a huge flamewar, at least not yet.
    • unanswered 6y ago
      You would have changed the title of a hit piece against Hitler himself on the grounds that he didn't call for the genocide of all Jews, just putting them in camps to concentrate. Disgraceful.
    • richardwhiuk 6y ago
      dang: I'm not particularly sure in what way this is a new phenomenon. It's basically just US politics as normal.
      • dang 6y ago
        I don't think congresspeople putting pressure on media infrastructure like that is politics as normal. This seems to me like a step change in the current trend.
    • temp8964 6y ago
      NYT used the title "House Democrats Press Cable Providers on Election Fraud Claims", I don't think it is much different and I think my edit is based on the actual content in the letters. But thank you for unflag the post.
• TrispusAttucks 6y ago
  To determine misinformation you must first determine information. We would need to setup some government entity to determine true information. We could call it the "Ministry of Truth". Unless that name is already taken? ... the cold wind blows...
  • zug_zug 6y ago
    If only somehow the government could determine what is true... </sarcasm> When somebody is accused of a crime we just have to say "Guilty according to whom?" and let them go, because there's no way to know what's true. Sure the DNA says he murdered 3 children, but what are those scientists really after! If only there were some organized system for appointed people with great track records to somehow listen to both sides of an argument and produce some sort of "judgment" at the end. But that's impossible, because only the TV box knows what's true. Alas...
    • SkyBelow 6y ago
      >Sure the DNA says he murdered 3 children Does it? Enough labs have shown to be unreliable in handling evidence and being able to follow correct procedures. Remember back when the bite marks showed they were the murderer, or the skull shaped showed them to be a killed, or they didn't float so they must've been a witch?
      • zug_zug 6y ago
        In a way you're agreeing with me. You're pointing out how hard it is to find what's true, and the obvious answer to me seems - better science. Have the DNA sent to 3 separate labs to test blindly against a control (blind tests are a huge component of the scientific method), require consensus from all 3 labs. Modern scientific method also was the solution to "phrenology" (skull shape). At least I assume you're not arguing all scientific evidence in court should be inadmissible?
    • amadeuspagel 6y ago
      This is a red herring because the letter doesn't call for the legal system to determine what's true and false, it tries to pressure cable companies to drop cable channels that the ruling party doesn't like. Regardless, the legal system does in fact make mistakes. We have the legal system because in some cases final decisions have to be made - who to imprison and who not - not because it's a perfect system. The fact that we need a system for a limited purpose doesn't imply that we should expand it's power indefinitely.
• croutonwagon 6y ago
  Robby Soave had a good take on this https://reason.com/2021/02/22/eshoo-mcnerney-letter-fox-news-newsmax-oann-comcast-misinformation/ https://reason.com/2021/02/22/eshoo-mcnerney-letter-fox-news...
• macspoofing 6y ago
  What's new here? This has been a new normal for Democratic establishment over the last 4 yours. Democratic establishment essentially captured major culture institutions, specifically Mainstream Media, Big Tech and Social Media and Academia, and now they are settings their sights on internet providers and cable companies.
• ApolloFortyNine 6y ago
  Scary stuff, I feel like I'm slowly watching as the U.S turns into a one party state, and enforced by the government itself. We argue about how it's okay for private companies to censor whatever they feel like, but what if it's the government pressuring them to do so? They themselves in this letter mention that 50% of Americans get their news from TV, and many American's have one choice of Cable provider, and even if they have 2 or 3, that's just 2 or 3 companies you have to pressure into delisting news sources of your choosing to make them essentially unreachable for the vast majority of the population. The next step I feel is obviously blocking websites, again Americans only have 1 or 2 options of internet providers, and in this case they'd already have pressured them into censoring cable, so why not ask the same companies to censor the internet? Steps like this just make me think that one side clearly doesn't plan on ever being able to lose an election again, and with actions available such as adding new states, adding 12-20 million new voters (illegal immigrants), I can see why they feel that way. Any authoritarian steps taken in democracy are usually balanced by the fact the other side could do the same when in power. If you simply never lose power, that's not an issue.
  • minikites 6y ago
    Which party is the "one party" here?
    • bpodgursky 6y ago
      Probably the one with the presidency, house, senate, most of the media, and social media content moderation.
      • minikites 6y ago
        I just don't understand the parent post, the Democrats want MORE people to be able to vote, how is that "planning to never lose an election again"? The Republicans are the only ones who ever fight to suppress votes, most recently the attacks on absentee voting in Georgia, which are a direct result of two Democrats winning there and has absolutely nothing to do with "illegal immigrants" or election security on any level. Which one sounds more like "planning to never lose an election again", the scheme where more people vote or the scheme where fewer people vote?
• boredumb 6y ago
  I'm old enough to remember when calling private news agencies Fake News was an assault on our Freedom of the Press.
• minikites 6y ago
  Stepping back to a larger discussion about censorship, how exactly is "the marketplace of ideas" supposed to fight blatant falsehoods and other propaganda/misinformation? Ignoring it doesn't have the best track record so far, even Mark Twain figured out that a lie can make it halfway around the world before the truth even starts.
• NeonVice 6y ago
  These media companies are regulated by the FCC, so media companies will now feel pressured to effectively regulate free speech on behalf of the political party in power to avoid any negative repercussions in unrelated matters. It's disturbing that the constitution limits the government from quelling free speech so now the government is pressuring private companies to achieve what they are forbidden to do on their own.
• gotoeleven 6y ago
  Remember when republicans sent a letter to cable providers asking them how many viewers watched MSNBC for russia conspiracy theories or context-free coverage of the recent police shootings or sympathetic coverage of people burning down police stations and declaring autonomous zones or the breathless reporting about "kids in cages" and everyone thought that was totally cool?
• ianai 6y ago
  This discussion does HN a disservice. Further the comments reflect a prior, thoroughly editorialized title.
• cameroncairns 6y ago
  Reading the letters, they are only signed by two Democratic members of the house. They are both on the committee for communications and technology, but they only represent 2 of 28 voting representatives. This really feels more like a publicity stunt on their part to please their constituents than some sort of concerted effort by the Democratic party, but perhaps someone with more insight on congress could enlighten me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Energy_Subcommittee_on_Communications_and_Technology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Energy_Sub...
  • SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    No, you probably have it right. House members pretty regularly do weird performative things they don't really expect to lead anywhere; it's increasingly seen as part of the job.
• LatteLazy 6y ago
  Does anyone have any proposals for dealing with mass misinformation other that aren't censorship? I mean specific ideas, not just "people need to be more decerning"? I ask because I don't like censorship but I feel we're approaching a point where we have censorship and democracy or we don't have democracy anymore. And I like democracy... * information isn't glamorous, so unless we redesigned the whole media market it won't win by itself. * educating people is noble, but it will take 80 years for the humans currently alive to be replaced by a new generation of educated people. And that's assuming a high success rate in education to spot fake news etc. * there are very few ways to reform democracy that might improve this. We could require people to pass simple tests before they can vote, and blackout non-fact-only news for a month before elections. But I already hear how that's not much better than simply censoring fake news. Any other ideas?
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
• exabrial 6y ago
  We can't have people thinking those wrong thoughts! Stop them at the source.
• hpcjoe 6y ago
  Glad that we aren't deplatforming social/media networks (modern day book burning). Oh. Wait.
• cjdrake 6y ago
  This seems like a terrible idea.
• mudil 6y ago
  Glenn Greenwald specifically discusses these developments in today's writeup. https://greenwald.substack.com/p/house-democrats-targeting-right-wing https://greenwald.substack.com/p/house-democrats-targeting-r...
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• meiji163 6y ago
  ah yes, time to appoint the glorious truth czars.
• maerF0x0 6y ago
  While some sources are being chastised for the content they put out, it's equally damaging to negligently not put out content on other stories. Both sides are doing this pick and choose game of politics and bias. hear about it in the hunter biden case here:https://youtu.be/ZnMMx-i971I?t=2481 https://youtu.be/ZnMMx-i971I?t=2481
• yongjik 6y ago
  It feels weird to watch all this outrage, when we had four years of the president calling the media "fake news", and everybody pretty much accepted "Yeah, that's just the way he talks." Partisanship, partisanship everywhere.
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• tl 6y ago
  Not sure if this qualifies as editorialization, but "Letters from [2 California] House Democrats to [Internet and Smart TV Device] Providers" is a more accurate title.
• omgwtfbyobbq 6y ago
  It's heavy handed, but not surprising. My guess is they're trying to collect information to make a case for some sort of fine and/or injunction and/or censorship of specific instances of misinformation that may be related to the recent insurrection. The courts have held that government can restrict free speech to further national security, so it's not novel. At the same time, proving a relationship between media corporation misinformation and the insurrection would be very difficult. Periodically, the Supreme Court has examined whether the government can restrict speech to further the compelling interests of national security. In doing so, the Court has recognized that national security, as a governmental interest, does justify restrictions on First Amendment rights. In the landmark free press decision Near v. Minnesota (1931), the Court established a general rule against prior restraints on expression. However, the Court did note that the government could shut down a newspaper if it published military secrets: “No one would question but that a government might prevent actual obstruction to its recruiting service or the publication of the sailing dates of transports or the number and location of troops.” Nevertheless, the government must provide proof that national security interests really are in play—that is, the government cannot simply use national security as a blank check to sidestep constitutional challenges. In New York Times Co. v. United States (1971), the majority of the Court rejected the government’s national security justifications for attempting to prevent the New York Times and the Washington Post from publishing the Pentagon Papers, the top-secret history of the U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. In his concurring opinion, Justice Hugo L. Black explained that “the word ‘security’ is a broad, vague generality whose contours should not be invoked to abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment.” https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1134/national-security https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1134/national-s...
• 74B5 6y ago
  I think many US americans despise the german approach to censorship of speech. Here in germany, we have not freedom speech but freedom of opinion, which makes a very crucial distinction. There are two kinds of statements, descriptive and normative ones. Descriptive statements explain "as is" relationships like "this door is blue" or "2 + 2 = 5". It does not matter if the statement is false or not. Normative statements cover subjective "should be" relationships. These are opinions like "it should be 3 years parental leave" and thus protected in german law as beeing unrestricted. This is, what is needed for free public discourse and not the right to claim falsehoods. In germany, you cant freely say that "jews are all criminals" and "the holocaust never happend". Over here, you can get penalized for public statements like these because (a) they are not opinions but wrong descriptive statements and (b) explicitly noted as beeing illegal. Whereas in the Us all speech is free (insults and such excluded ofc). The question is, where do you draw the line. To which point can wrong descriptive public statements still be tolerated and where might they harm society or individuals? From the german perspective, this question is easy to answer and i am considering the storm of the capitol here :)
  • bzbarsky 6y ago
    First of all, "insults" are not excluded from free speech protections in the US, except in very narrow circumstances. Second, the distinction between normative and descriptive statements, as you define them, is not always clear-cut. As a simple example, is which bucket is "I think these doors are the same color" when said about a red and green door? What about (to use your example, but with a slight tweak), "I think all <insert group> are criminals"? Note that the "I think" was implicit in your phrasing, though maybe the implicit vs explicit distinction matters. Third, even for statements everyone agrees are descriptive there may be widespread disagreement as to whether they are true. Example: "Donald Trump is a criminal." The US approach to this is to generally try to avoid having the government be the arbiter of truth, with some narrow exceptions for libel and the like. The German approach, as you note is different, not least due to different historical experiences. Which approach is better depends a _lot_ on circumstances and culture and norms and so forth. The German one places a lot more trust in the government not abusing it's truth-determination power than the US one does.
• tgflynn 6y ago
  As far as I can tell these letters were signed by only 2 members of Congress. As such the title "Letters from House Democrats" seems misleading. That title suggests to me that some substantially representative fraction of the House Democratic delegation is behind these letters. That does not appear to be the case.
  • dang 6y ago
    Ok, we've tweaked the wording to address that. Thanks!
• ldbooth 6y ago
  I think they would do better to solve the business model at the genesis of the issue. The Attention economy brought the conspiracy and outrage machine to each of our phones. There's an addict in my pocket. We need the political willpower to say "Yea you are a rich money making company, but a harm for X, Y reasons, and therefore this is the new regulation for companies profiting on an attention based model." There will be fallout, solutions require it, we must have courage and stop putting companies and money on a pedestal above people.
  • helen___keller 6y ago
    > The Attention economy brought the conspiracy and outrage machine to each of our phones. Speaking of, just take a look around the responses to this very submission
    • ldbooth 6y ago
      So true. It's gonna take an external crisis to unite these states. I'm praying for vegan aliens.
• eplanit 6y ago
  It's political theater, but is still relevant and noteworthy as this kind of action pierces through the "but this isn't about the 1st Amendment because they're private companies and can de-platform anyone". Once FB, Twitter, or a cable company start censoring due to government pressure, then 1st amendment arguments are indeed applicable.
• mensetmanusman 6y ago
  I wish the democrats would focus on good governance.
• randmeerkat 6y ago
  You can’t swear on television, you can’t yell fire in a theater, you can’t criticise your company on your device after hours on Twitter, a gay couple can’t have a cake baked, a woman can’t even show her nipples, but that kind of censorship isn’t on the front page of hacker news... Because what people really care about is that the media outlets that participated in a violent insurrection can continue to spew their hate and lies without consequence.
• yters 6y ago
  When men exercise their reason coolly and freely on a variety of distinct questions, they inevitably fall into different opinions on some of them. When they are governed by a common passion, their opinions, if they are so to be called, will be the same. - Madison, Federalist No. 50
• cassalian 6y ago
  Remember when the left said they wanted to unify the country? I guess squashing all opposing viewpoints is one way to do that... Maybe they should get some help from Russia and China, I hear they have a lot of experience in dealing with 'misinformation'
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
• molbioguy 6y ago
  These letters are potentially unconstitutional actions. First amendment rights can be violated by entities other than the government. As pointed out in [1], the government can't induce a company to do something that were government to do it would be illegal: It is “axiomatic,” the Supreme Court held in Norwood v. Harrison (1973), that the government “may not induce, encourage or promote private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish.” [1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/save-the-constitution-from-big-tech-11610387105 https://www.wsj.com/articles/save-the-constitution-from-big-... Edited for grammar and unnecessary qualifiers.
  • dragonwriter 6y ago
    > These letters are are bordering on potentially unconstitutional actions. “bordering on potentially X” is a very misleading way to say “not even arguably X”. But that's really all it says.
    • molbioguy 6y ago
      Thanks. I removed the unnecessary 'bordering on'. The intent was to say they're unconstitutional in my view.
• simonh 6y ago
  I’m deeply concerned about disinformation, it’s a major problem. Politics has always had spin, and many issues are complex and it can be easy to state things too emphatically to press your case. Accusations of lying are everyday in politics. But recently flat out knowingly lying with the specific intent of deceiving people has become normalised. It’s a serious threat. This is precisely the wrong way to tackle it though. We cannot ever allow government to control what can or cannot be said, outside narrow limits such as incitement to violence. Making the case for the truth will just have to be done the hard way. Fortunately it looks like this is only 2 congresscritters, not “House Democrats” generally. There are at least a handful of utter wing nuts on both party benches so last put this in perspective. The main problem with social media services is algorithms that drive engagement by turning people’s feeds into an ever more extreme echo chamber. Whether it’s lefties being zombified into SJW snowflakes deplatforming people on campuses, or Qannnon turning people into alt right political flat earthers. That’s what they need to address, picking and choosing opinions to block is a fig leaf move that’s more likely to backfire than improve anything. It’s a hard problem though. What do we do about these engagement algorithms? I’ve no clue.
  • dragonwriter 6y ago
    > This is precisely the wrong way to tackle it though. We cannot ever allow government to control what can or cannot be said Can you please point me to a proposal for government to control what can or cannot be said? Not a speculation about what might, in the future, be proposed based on what some people fear based on the questions in these letters, but an actual concrete proposal? Otherwise, I don't see how “This is precisely the wrong way to tackle it” follows from “We cannot ever allow...” since the only possible thing “this” can refer to doesn't, at all, involve the thing we “cannot ever allow”.
    • dnissley 6y ago
      Are you not able to see the implicit threat in this letter?
      • deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
• kirillzubovsky 6y ago
  House Democrats are trying to dictate what is allowed to air by wrapping it into a freedoom-fighting blanket. That's disgusting. If you want the standards to apply to someone else, apply them to yourself first. This is just political theatre.
• BooneJS 6y ago
  I was hoping this was a request to carry CSPAN in HD.
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• InfiniteBeing 6y ago
  Meanwhile the major Democrat leaning/voting news outlets peddled russian collusion conspiracy nonsense for years and then stoked the flames of racial and anti-police violence last year. And I see we have people here clinging to misinformation and melodramatic interpretations by the major liberal news outlets on events of january 6th, and these people don't know that they are living in unreality themselves and yet want to censor their political opponents under the guises of "misinformation" and "inciting."
  • noahtallen 6y ago
    You may find the Mueller report enlightening, then. [1] The claims are hardly nonsense: it’s a bipartisan fact that Russians made a big effort to influence at least the 2016 election, and succeeded. [2] Rather than taking a hard stance against Russia because of this, Trump officials have been convicted related to their lies about the situation. [3] Alleging or assuming that trump knew about this and/or encouraged it is not a huge stretch given his history. [4] You seem to be saying the entire thing is conspiracy nonsense, but the reality is that some very deeply concerning things happened. Things not just rumored about, but proven in a court of law [5], or investigated by even Republican committees [2]. Even if you assume that Trump did not specifically ask Russia to do anything (see [4] again), his response to the situation was extremely damning. 1. https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf 2. https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report_Volume2.pdf https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/docu... 3. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Links_between_Trump_associates_and_Russian_officials https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Links_between_Trump_associat... 4. Trump welcomes Russia to hack Hilary at 13:30 in this video: https://www.c-span.org/video/?413263-1/donald-trump-urges-russia-find-hillary-clinton-emails-criticizes-record-tpp&start=775 https://www.c-span.org/video/?413263-1/donald-trump-urges-ru... 5. https://apnews.com/article/ad355d2c983e4a7c85bc17e86d8c563f https://apnews.com/article/ad355d2c983e4a7c85bc17e86d8c563f
    • jimbob45 6y ago
      The problem is that it wasn’t evidence enough to convict Trump. It’s fine if you want to insist that Trump did in fact commit a crime (I might even agree with you) but then you can’t criticize the people saying Trump actually won the election because you’re also promoting a conspiracy without evidence.
• SMAAART 6y ago
  Disinformation is bad, but this is of concern to me, the 1st Amendment is still the 1st Amendment; there si a good body of Laws that posed due limits to the 1st Amendment without compromising its spirit. We should look at acts like this "letters" with more concern than disinformation itself.
• fireeyed 6y ago
  Why not just go with Chinese Style communism and have a state TV and be done with it.
• someonehere 6y ago
  Isn’t it funny the day after Biden was inaugurated the Covid death toll on all CNN shows in the bottom bar disappeared and all the “left” news outlets started talking less and less about the deaths and problems with Covid? Like it magically went away. News outlets have their political alignments. All of them do. They’re all pushing a narrative. How about we just get rid of cable news altogether? There are six companies that own all the media we consume so we should probably do something about it: https://fortune.com/longform/media-company-ownership-consolidation/ https://fortune.com/longform/media-company-ownership-consoli...
• tptacek 6y ago
  This appears to be a letter from just two House members (the Democratic majority has 221) --- Eshoo, whose district includes the south bay area, and McNerny, from Stockton.
  • tylerritchie 6y ago
    The best part about your observation (this is less than 1% of the Democrats in the House) are the (currently top, highly-piled-on) comments with people clutching their pearls and wondering how The Democrats--as a collective--strayed so far into Orwellian territory. It's left as an exercise to the reader to determine whether those commenters are being genuine, or are just grossly incapable of critical thinking.
    • tptacek 6y ago
      It's too late to do anything about it now, but it's for this reason that we have a general norm against these kinds of stories on HN --- this falls into the same bucket as "proposed bill" (this is far less than a proposed bill), which are virtually always off-topic on HN, as you can confirm with a quick search of 'dang comments. The normal good thing to do with stuff like this is to flag it before it sprawls into a 500 comment thread.
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]