10 ms·

"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

"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.
    - wdn 6y ago
      You should see how upset people were when you told them you think Trump is a great president. At my last job, the IT admin was so upset that he told me that he will not do any of my incidents. No discussion what so ever.
      - bonestamp2 6y ago
        That's unfortunate that he chose to respond that way. I might disagree with you on Trump but I think we probably have far more in common than we disagree on. I don't know how anyone thinks we're going to solve our real problems if we can't have constructive conversations about where we agree and disagree, and how we can both compromise to work toward what is probably a shared goal. I believe most Americans have the same basic goals: good health, prosperity, security, and strong community. Most of where we disagree is around how to achieve those goals. Unfortunately, too many people get caught up in the "how" and that it makes it so much harder to get anything done.
      - brighton36 6y ago
        There's nothing more just than vengeance.
        teddyh 6y ago
        “Vengeance is at the core of many of the world's most enduring and moronic conflicts.” — http://tailsteak.com/archive.php?num=275 http://tailsteak.com/archive.php?num=275
- omgwtfbyobbq 6y ago
  It may be. The key is whether the misinformation present directed others to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action, and I think it hinges on how people reacted to the misinformation. CNN/MSNBC may also have misinformation, but their misinformation may not be in the same class, specifically something that could motivate some subset of their viewers to commit insurrection by attempting to detain and possibly murder elected representatives. In either case, it'll be interesting to see where this goes. Edited based on feedback.
  - bhupy 6y ago
    > To me, it could also be the modern day version of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, and I think it hinges on how people reacted to the misinformation. That legal argument has been overturned precisely because it has no real limiting principle: https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/ https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim...
    - omgwtfbyobbq 6y ago
      While it's not the best, people are familiar with it. The replacement is certainly more accurate. In this case, is the misinformation present directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action?
      - rayiner 6y ago
        "Incitement" and "imminent lawless action" are extremely narrow compared to what people are talking about here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio Even openly advocating violence is protected by the first amendment under the Supreme Court's Brandenburg decision.
        omgwtfbyobbq 6y ago
        They are narrowly interpreted as it relates to individuals, but I'm not sure that same interpretation would be applied to media outlets. In terms of liability, as a property owner I have a much lower standards for care, custody, and control of an empty piece of property I have with a no trespassing sign than a corporation has for a sports stadium they run. I'm not certain that the standards for free speech by an individual in a single instance would be the same as the standards for a large media corporation across multiple instances. How narrowly the court interprets "incitement" and "imminent lawless action" may be a function of the entity making them. An individual who is making political speech could say something that is considered protected, while a large corporation saying the same thing repeatedly, in a different context, may not be protected in the same way.
- ineptech 6y ago
  How is asking Fox for viewership numbers, "a chilling attempt at limiting speech"?
  - colpabar 6y ago
    Would you feel the same way if house republicans sent letters to twitter asking how many users used the #blm hashtag last summer? It seems to me that we'd get lots of headlines declaring that they were attempting to silence anyone in favor of police reform.
  - LanceH 6y ago
    It's a legislative body which is trying to limit speech not through legislation but through intimidation. They could pass a law and have it struck down nearly immediately, or they could flog CEO's in public for their own amusement.
    - Alupis 6y ago
      > It's a legislative body which is trying to limit speech not through legislation but through intimidation Bingo! When these CEO's enact new policies that censors "Right-Think", it'll be totally okay because it's not the Government limiting Free Speech - private companies are allowed to limit Free Speech, don't you see!
      - jodrellblank 6y ago
        That isn't what "free speech" means. Free Speech means the government won't imprison or execute you. Private companies operate private services, they can kick you off for saying "bread" if they want and it's not "limiting free speech".
        Alupis 6y ago
        You see the issue here then, right? Government cannot limit your Free Speech, for the reason I (and you) pointed out. So... short of any alternative tools, the Government sets out to intimidate private companies into censoring on the Government's behalf. What more... it's not "The Government" - it's a political party that happens to be in power right now and is seeking to censor the other political party through means of intimidation and coercion of private companies. That doesn't sit very well with me.. regardless of which party is attempting to censor which.
HeckFeck 6y ago
Just elect some honest politicians and they'll be morally capable of fighting 'misinformation'. Still waiting for a possible world like that to exist.
throwaway8582 6y ago
It's political censorship disguised at fact checking. If they were really concerned about "fake news", they would apply the same standards to the other side. Remember how just a couple years ago almost all of the major media outlets were pushing a conspiracy theory about "Russian Collusion"? Yet nobody is talking about shutting ABC, CBS, NBC, or MSNBC down, kicking them off cable, or banning them from the internet.
- unanswered 6y ago
  Careful, most people including most HN readers still believe in the Russian Collusion theory despite it being quietly disavowed by the press.
- ardy42 6y ago
  > It's political censorship disguised at fact checking. If they were really concerned about "fake news", they would apply the same standards to the other side. Remember how just a couple years ago almost all of the major media outlets were pushing a conspiracy theory about "Russian Collusion"? Yet nobody is talking about shutting ABC, CBS, NBC, or MSNBC down, kicking them off cable, or banning them from the internet. You're misremembering. Russian collusion was an allegation that needed to be investigated because of 1) the actions of Russian intelligence agencies to influence the election in ways advantageous to Trump, and 2) weird things members of the Trump campaign did that were suspicious. However, the major media outlets only reported on that, and it didn't go on to claim that there was actual collusion. For instance, here's the first page of results from major media outlet search for "Russian collusion" (ending the day before the Mueller report): https://www.nytimes.com/search?dropmab=true&endDate=20190321&query=Russian%20collusion&sort=best&startDate=20170101 https://www.nytimes.com/search?dropmab=true&endDate=20190321... > BRIEFING Judge Doubles Down on Scrutiny of Roger Stone’s Book > POLITICS Roger Stone’s New Instagram Post and Book Draw Scrutiny After Gag Order > POLITICS Trump Lawyer ‘Vehemently’ Denies Russian Collusion > POLITICS ‘Collusion Delusion’: Trump’s CPAC Speech Mocks Mueller Inquiry > POLITICS Trump Says There Was ‘No Collusion’ With the Russians > OPINION The Russians Were Involved. But It Wasn’t About Collusion. > POLITICS Indictment Details Collusion Between Cyberthief and 2 Russian Spies > OPINION How Will ‘Collusion’ Play in the Midterms? > OPINION Can We Please Stop Talking About ‘Collusion’? > OPINION Oh, Wait. Maybe It Was Collusion. That last piece sounds like it's the closest to saying there was collusion, lets see what it says: > What remains to be determined is whether the Russians also attempted to suborn members of the Trump team in an effort to gain their cooperation. This is why the investigation by the special counsel, Robert Mueller, is so important. That's not pushing a conspiracy theory. On the other hand, Fox News, OANN, NewsMax, etc. lied to the extent that they're legitimately worried about the conspiracy theories they were pushing costing them a lot of money from defamation lawsuits: https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/19/business/fox-smartmatic-news-package/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/19/business/fox-smartmatic-news-... https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/05/media/lou-dobbs-fox-show-canceled/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/05/media/lou-dobbs-fox-show-canc... https://www.cnn.com/videos/business/2021/02/03/newsmax-mike-lindell-2020-election-orig.cnn-business https://www.cnn.com/videos/business/2021/02/03/newsmax-mike-... However, I don't fault you too much for this confusion. There are a lot of liars out there who've found a lot of success "arguing" with false equivalencies to keep their followers loyal to the cause.
bioinformatics 6y ago
I am surprised that they didn't ask for a list of the subscribers including SSN.
minikites 6y ago
Apparently moves like this are only "nakedly partisan" when Democrats do it, but it's fine when Republicans withhold aid from Democratic states.
- dang 6y ago
  Please don't take HN threads further into political flamewar. Admittedly the GP pointed that way, but there's a difference between pointing and going there—and there are other reasons besides outright battle why one might want to talk about partisanship in this context. The goal of HN threads is to be curious conversation; that tends to require not burning alive. So far this thread is mostly managing to stay on the good side of the line. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
pfortuny 6y ago
From "how many people" to "what people" there is only a single step. And it is very very very easy to take it. That a congressperson makes this kind of question speaks volumes about him. Unbelievable.
- hpcjoe 6y ago
  I know I'll be downvoted for this, but fundamentally this definition[1] includes "and forcible suppression of opposition". In what way is this letter not the first step in this direction? I'm no fan of the previous president. Really didn't like him. But this ... this attempt at shutting down of opposition communication, is the hallmark, the signature of nascent oppression. And a slide into fascism/socialism/etc. [1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism
  - pfortuny 6y ago
    Saying that you will be downvoted guarantees it. You are right but it is best not to mention the beast, in my opinion.
    - hpcjoe 6y ago
      Until we confront this, without fabricating fever swamp fiction to frighten captive tribal masses, we are going to be stuck in this dystopia. Teetering on the edge of {fasc,Democratic|National social}ism who all seek to control the narrative and suppress dissent.
  - jodrellblank 6y ago
    In what way /is/ this letter the first step in this direction? > "But this ... this attempt at shutting down of opposition communication" ... is completely imaginary? A member of Congress writing a letter to Tyson Chicken asking what steps they took after the COVID incident of placing bets on how many workers would get infected, is not something you can reasonably turn into "this attempt at shutting down food production". It's not like these are secret backroom letters with threatening content released by whistleblowers to embarrass the senders, these letters were announced by official press release[1]. There is no attempt at shutting down of opposition communication in writing a letter that asks questions to which the media company can reply "we don't censor content". Do Anna Eshoo or Jerry McNerny have any unusual influence over funding or licensing (etc.) decisions for Cox, Alphabet, AT&T, Dish, than any other Congressperson, in a way that would make the letters carry more weight than their content suggests? [1] https://eshoo.house.gov/media/press-releases/eshoo-mcnerney-urge-tv-companies-address-spread-misinformation https://eshoo.house.gov/media/press-releases/eshoo-mcnerney-...
axaxs 6y ago
It is -very- partisan, and equivalent to poking a wasp nest with a stick. The country is very, very divided, not just between D vs R but also progressive vs...everyone else. I wish I had the answers(surprise, I don't), but I feel we should find some commonality, some give and take, and get on a path toward a semblance of unity. Trying to silence your opposition is what I'd call the complete opposite of that approach.
- hpcjoe 6y ago
  I think the only way to handle this is to stand up for common sense, and call out those attempting to use 1984 as a playbook. To shine the disinfecting light of day upon things like this. To vote the idiots who push this crap, out. This could be making sure you primary them, recall them, or elect other persons. Seriously, allegiance to political parties is not what I am looking for in my elected reps. I want them to work on behalf of me. Not their particular party label. The damage that the two parties fighting for political power have done to this country is ... staggering.
  - engineer_22 6y ago
    -> I want them to work on behalf of me. Sorry pal, Citizens United screwed up any chances of that.
    - hpcjoe 6y ago
      I agree it had a part in it, but its not the whole story. Its the citizens being unable to elect people not beholden to political parties, with party obligations. These obligations appear to be more important than their obligations to the people who put them there. This isn't a Citizen's United issue as much as it is a set of political parties that have evolved to control their captive populations. Some people vote D|R precisely to stick it to the others. They don't care about representation. They care about tribalism. The parties foster and encourage that thinking. The various "news" channels have their own opinions and often align with a particular party. Which means they are in the propaganda and red meat business. Not the news business. CU is a part of this, in terms of providing fuel for the fire, but its been going on much longer than CU, and will continue regardless of whether or not CU gets struck down going forward.
hpcjoe 6y ago
Worse than that, it is an attempt at intimidation. Given today's climate, it would not surprise me if it works. Look at it this way. The capital riot on 6-Jan was planned and discussed on Youtube, facebook, and twitter. Apparently, barely a mention on Parler. Yet Parler was excoriated and deplatformed for it, and for not policing its comment sections. Yet Youtube, facebook, and twitter have faced no consequences for their ... whats the word I heard used about Parler ... complicity? This is a dystopian future.
- sharklazer 6y ago
  > This is a dystopian future No, pretty sure it's now. This is a dystopian society we live in today.
- setpatchaddress 6y ago
  This is disinformation. https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/2021/02/01/civil-war-during-trumps-pre-riot-speech-parler-talk-grew-darker/4297165001/ https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/2021/02/01/civil-war-... https://nypost.com/2021/01/16/aoc-slams-facebooks-mark-zuckerberg-for-capitol-riot/ https://nypost.com/2021/01/16/aoc-slams-facebooks-mark-zucke... https://www.cbsnews.com/news/twitter-blocks-qanon-accounts-capitol-riots/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/twitter-blocks-qanon-accounts-c...
  - hpcjoe 6y ago
    No, it really wasn't dis/mis information. You can't just label facts you don't like, that go against a narrative that you wish to be true, as disinformation. Twitter, Facebook, and many others do this. They specifically stifle discussion that runs counter to the narratives they wish to promote. That's their choice as private companies. But holding them to account for this, when they claim they wish to be "fair" definitely begs the question of what their definition of "fair" is. It makes for a rather Clintonian discussion.
- ABeeSea 6y ago
  Parler was kicked off of AWS for violating AWS’s policies. I’m pretty sure I don’t have to tell you that YouTube and Facebook don’t use AWS.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
helen___keller 6y ago
> Does this strike anyone else as a nakedly partisan move? Of course, this entire letter is published by two democratic representatives from highly liberal districts (silicon valley and stockton) who want to pander to their base. There's nothing actionable or productive about this letter. Somehow we still have reactions in this thread on the scale of "we're on our way to a one-party state". This is just Congress doing what they do most every day (setting up for reelection)

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.
  - wdn 6y ago
    You should see how upset people were when you told them you think Trump is a great president. At my last job, the IT admin was so upset that he told me that he will not do any of my incidents. No discussion what so ever.
    - bonestamp2 6y ago
      That's unfortunate that he chose to respond that way. I might disagree with you on Trump but I think we probably have far more in common than we disagree on. I don't know how anyone thinks we're going to solve our real problems if we can't have constructive conversations about where we agree and disagree, and how we can both compromise to work toward what is probably a shared goal. I believe most Americans have the same basic goals: good health, prosperity, security, and strong community. Most of where we disagree is around how to achieve those goals. Unfortunately, too many people get caught up in the "how" and that it makes it so much harder to get anything done.
    - brighton36 6y ago
      There's nothing more just than vengeance.
      - teddyh 6y ago
        “Vengeance is at the core of many of the world's most enduring and moronic conflicts.” — http://tailsteak.com/archive.php?num=275 http://tailsteak.com/archive.php?num=275
omgwtfbyobbq 6y ago
It may be. The key is whether the misinformation present directed others to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action, and I think it hinges on how people reacted to the misinformation. CNN/MSNBC may also have misinformation, but their misinformation may not be in the same class, specifically something that could motivate some subset of their viewers to commit insurrection by attempting to detain and possibly murder elected representatives. In either case, it'll be interesting to see where this goes. Edited based on feedback.
- bhupy 6y ago
  > To me, it could also be the modern day version of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, and I think it hinges on how people reacted to the misinformation. That legal argument has been overturned precisely because it has no real limiting principle: https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/ https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim...
  - omgwtfbyobbq 6y ago
    While it's not the best, people are familiar with it. The replacement is certainly more accurate. In this case, is the misinformation present directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action?
    - rayiner 6y ago
      "Incitement" and "imminent lawless action" are extremely narrow compared to what people are talking about here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio Even openly advocating violence is protected by the first amendment under the Supreme Court's Brandenburg decision.
      - omgwtfbyobbq 6y ago
        They are narrowly interpreted as it relates to individuals, but I'm not sure that same interpretation would be applied to media outlets. In terms of liability, as a property owner I have a much lower standards for care, custody, and control of an empty piece of property I have with a no trespassing sign than a corporation has for a sports stadium they run. I'm not certain that the standards for free speech by an individual in a single instance would be the same as the standards for a large media corporation across multiple instances. How narrowly the court interprets "incitement" and "imminent lawless action" may be a function of the entity making them. An individual who is making political speech could say something that is considered protected, while a large corporation saying the same thing repeatedly, in a different context, may not be protected in the same way.
ineptech 6y ago
How is asking Fox for viewership numbers, "a chilling attempt at limiting speech"?
- colpabar 6y ago
  Would you feel the same way if house republicans sent letters to twitter asking how many users used the #blm hashtag last summer? It seems to me that we'd get lots of headlines declaring that they were attempting to silence anyone in favor of police reform.
- LanceH 6y ago
  It's a legislative body which is trying to limit speech not through legislation but through intimidation. They could pass a law and have it struck down nearly immediately, or they could flog CEO's in public for their own amusement.
  - Alupis 6y ago
    > It's a legislative body which is trying to limit speech not through legislation but through intimidation Bingo! When these CEO's enact new policies that censors "Right-Think", it'll be totally okay because it's not the Government limiting Free Speech - private companies are allowed to limit Free Speech, don't you see!
    - jodrellblank 6y ago
      That isn't what "free speech" means. Free Speech means the government won't imprison or execute you. Private companies operate private services, they can kick you off for saying "bread" if they want and it's not "limiting free speech".
      - Alupis 6y ago
        You see the issue here then, right? Government cannot limit your Free Speech, for the reason I (and you) pointed out. So... short of any alternative tools, the Government sets out to intimidate private companies into censoring on the Government's behalf. What more... it's not "The Government" - it's a political party that happens to be in power right now and is seeking to censor the other political party through means of intimidation and coercion of private companies. That doesn't sit very well with me.. regardless of which party is attempting to censor which.

HeckFeck 6y ago

Just elect some honest politicians and they'll be morally capable of fighting 'misinformation'. Still waiting for a possible world like that to exist.

throwaway8582 6y ago

It's political censorship disguised at fact checking. If they were really concerned about "fake news", they would apply the same standards to the other side. Remember how just a couple years ago almost all of the major media outlets were pushing a conspiracy theory about "Russian Collusion"? Yet nobody is talking about shutting ABC, CBS, NBC, or MSNBC down, kicking them off cable, or banning them from the internet.

unanswered 6y ago
Careful, most people including most HN readers still believe in the Russian Collusion theory despite it being quietly disavowed by the press.
ardy42 6y ago
> It's political censorship disguised at fact checking. If they were really concerned about "fake news", they would apply the same standards to the other side. Remember how just a couple years ago almost all of the major media outlets were pushing a conspiracy theory about "Russian Collusion"? Yet nobody is talking about shutting ABC, CBS, NBC, or MSNBC down, kicking them off cable, or banning them from the internet. You're misremembering. Russian collusion was an allegation that needed to be investigated because of 1) the actions of Russian intelligence agencies to influence the election in ways advantageous to Trump, and 2) weird things members of the Trump campaign did that were suspicious. However, the major media outlets only reported on that, and it didn't go on to claim that there was actual collusion. For instance, here's the first page of results from major media outlet search for "Russian collusion" (ending the day before the Mueller report): https://www.nytimes.com/search?dropmab=true&endDate=20190321&query=Russian%20collusion&sort=best&startDate=20170101 https://www.nytimes.com/search?dropmab=true&endDate=20190321... > BRIEFING Judge Doubles Down on Scrutiny of Roger Stone’s Book > POLITICS Roger Stone’s New Instagram Post and Book Draw Scrutiny After Gag Order > POLITICS Trump Lawyer ‘Vehemently’ Denies Russian Collusion > POLITICS ‘Collusion Delusion’: Trump’s CPAC Speech Mocks Mueller Inquiry > POLITICS Trump Says There Was ‘No Collusion’ With the Russians > OPINION The Russians Were Involved. But It Wasn’t About Collusion. > POLITICS Indictment Details Collusion Between Cyberthief and 2 Russian Spies > OPINION How Will ‘Collusion’ Play in the Midterms? > OPINION Can We Please Stop Talking About ‘Collusion’? > OPINION Oh, Wait. Maybe It Was Collusion. That last piece sounds like it's the closest to saying there was collusion, lets see what it says: > What remains to be determined is whether the Russians also attempted to suborn members of the Trump team in an effort to gain their cooperation. This is why the investigation by the special counsel, Robert Mueller, is so important. That's not pushing a conspiracy theory. On the other hand, Fox News, OANN, NewsMax, etc. lied to the extent that they're legitimately worried about the conspiracy theories they were pushing costing them a lot of money from defamation lawsuits: https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/19/business/fox-smartmatic-news-package/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/19/business/fox-smartmatic-news-... https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/05/media/lou-dobbs-fox-show-canceled/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/05/media/lou-dobbs-fox-show-canc... https://www.cnn.com/videos/business/2021/02/03/newsmax-mike-lindell-2020-election-orig.cnn-business https://www.cnn.com/videos/business/2021/02/03/newsmax-mike-... However, I don't fault you too much for this confusion. There are a lot of liars out there who've found a lot of success "arguing" with false equivalencies to keep their followers loyal to the cause.

bioinformatics 6y ago

I am surprised that they didn't ask for a list of the subscribers including SSN.

minikites 6y ago

Apparently moves like this are only "nakedly partisan" when Democrats do it, but it's fine when Republicans withhold aid from Democratic states.

dang 6y ago
Please don't take HN threads further into political flamewar. Admittedly the GP pointed that way, but there's a difference between pointing and going there—and there are other reasons besides outright battle why one might want to talk about partisanship in this context. The goal of HN threads is to be curious conversation; that tends to require not burning alive. So far this thread is mostly managing to stay on the good side of the line. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

pfortuny 6y ago

From "how many people" to "what people" there is only a single step. And it is very very very easy to take it. That a congressperson makes this kind of question speaks volumes about him. Unbelievable.

hpcjoe 6y ago
I know I'll be downvoted for this, but fundamentally this definition[1] includes "and forcible suppression of opposition". In what way is this letter not the first step in this direction? I'm no fan of the previous president. Really didn't like him. But this ... this attempt at shutting down of opposition communication, is the hallmark, the signature of nascent oppression. And a slide into fascism/socialism/etc. [1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism
- pfortuny 6y ago
  Saying that you will be downvoted guarantees it. You are right but it is best not to mention the beast, in my opinion.
  - hpcjoe 6y ago
    Until we confront this, without fabricating fever swamp fiction to frighten captive tribal masses, we are going to be stuck in this dystopia. Teetering on the edge of {fasc,Democratic|National social}ism who all seek to control the narrative and suppress dissent.
- jodrellblank 6y ago
  In what way /is/ this letter the first step in this direction? > "But this ... this attempt at shutting down of opposition communication" ... is completely imaginary? A member of Congress writing a letter to Tyson Chicken asking what steps they took after the COVID incident of placing bets on how many workers would get infected, is not something you can reasonably turn into "this attempt at shutting down food production". It's not like these are secret backroom letters with threatening content released by whistleblowers to embarrass the senders, these letters were announced by official press release[1]. There is no attempt at shutting down of opposition communication in writing a letter that asks questions to which the media company can reply "we don't censor content". Do Anna Eshoo or Jerry McNerny have any unusual influence over funding or licensing (etc.) decisions for Cox, Alphabet, AT&T, Dish, than any other Congressperson, in a way that would make the letters carry more weight than their content suggests? [1] https://eshoo.house.gov/media/press-releases/eshoo-mcnerney-urge-tv-companies-address-spread-misinformation https://eshoo.house.gov/media/press-releases/eshoo-mcnerney-...

axaxs 6y ago

It is -very- partisan, and equivalent to poking a wasp nest with a stick. The country is very, very divided, not just between D vs R but also progressive vs...everyone else. I wish I had the answers(surprise, I don't), but I feel we should find some commonality, some give and take, and get on a path toward a semblance of unity. Trying to silence your opposition is what I'd call the complete opposite of that approach.

hpcjoe 6y ago
I think the only way to handle this is to stand up for common sense, and call out those attempting to use 1984 as a playbook. To shine the disinfecting light of day upon things like this. To vote the idiots who push this crap, out. This could be making sure you primary them, recall them, or elect other persons. Seriously, allegiance to political parties is not what I am looking for in my elected reps. I want them to work on behalf of me. Not their particular party label. The damage that the two parties fighting for political power have done to this country is ... staggering.
- engineer_22 6y ago
  -> I want them to work on behalf of me. Sorry pal, Citizens United screwed up any chances of that.
  - hpcjoe 6y ago
    I agree it had a part in it, but its not the whole story. Its the citizens being unable to elect people not beholden to political parties, with party obligations. These obligations appear to be more important than their obligations to the people who put them there. This isn't a Citizen's United issue as much as it is a set of political parties that have evolved to control their captive populations. Some people vote D|R precisely to stick it to the others. They don't care about representation. They care about tribalism. The parties foster and encourage that thinking. The various "news" channels have their own opinions and often align with a particular party. Which means they are in the propaganda and red meat business. Not the news business. CU is a part of this, in terms of providing fuel for the fire, but its been going on much longer than CU, and will continue regardless of whether or not CU gets struck down going forward.

hpcjoe 6y ago

Worse than that, it is an attempt at intimidation. Given today's climate, it would not surprise me if it works. Look at it this way. The capital riot on 6-Jan was planned and discussed on Youtube, facebook, and twitter. Apparently, barely a mention on Parler. Yet Parler was excoriated and deplatformed for it, and for not policing its comment sections. Yet Youtube, facebook, and twitter have faced no consequences for their ... whats the word I heard used about Parler ... complicity? This is a dystopian future.

sharklazer 6y ago
> This is a dystopian future No, pretty sure it's now. This is a dystopian society we live in today.
setpatchaddress 6y ago
This is disinformation. https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/2021/02/01/civil-war-during-trumps-pre-riot-speech-parler-talk-grew-darker/4297165001/ https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/2021/02/01/civil-war-... https://nypost.com/2021/01/16/aoc-slams-facebooks-mark-zuckerberg-for-capitol-riot/ https://nypost.com/2021/01/16/aoc-slams-facebooks-mark-zucke... https://www.cbsnews.com/news/twitter-blocks-qanon-accounts-capitol-riots/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/twitter-blocks-qanon-accounts-c...
- hpcjoe 6y ago
  No, it really wasn't dis/mis information. You can't just label facts you don't like, that go against a narrative that you wish to be true, as disinformation. Twitter, Facebook, and many others do this. They specifically stifle discussion that runs counter to the narratives they wish to promote. That's their choice as private companies. But holding them to account for this, when they claim they wish to be "fair" definitely begs the question of what their definition of "fair" is. It makes for a rather Clintonian discussion.
ABeeSea 6y ago
Parler was kicked off of AWS for violating AWS’s policies. I’m pretty sure I don’t have to tell you that YouTube and Facebook don’t use AWS.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

helen___keller 6y ago

> Does this strike anyone else as a nakedly partisan move? Of course, this entire letter is published by two democratic representatives from highly liberal districts (silicon valley and stockton) who want to pander to their base. There's nothing actionable or productive about this letter. Somehow we still have reactions in this thread on the scale of "we're on our way to a one-party state". This is just Congress doing what they do most every day (setting up for reelection)