6 ms·

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 Misinformati

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.
      - jolux 6y ago
        That's not really the case. The government is accountable to the public, but it also has the power to conceal things from the public, and take unilateral action in the case of the executive branch. What I mean by "the public" are individuals cooperating to boycott organizations they see as corrosive to democracy, which is the typical solution for problems like this. The government is expressly and pretty strongly forbidden from regulating speech by our constitution, which is the mechanism by which the government is accountable to the people.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        arrosenberg 6y ago
        I tend to disagree with the notion that this letter is chilling on free speech. There is a difference between criticism of this government and agitprop designed to undermine the system of government. The 1A is designed to prevent the former, and this letter seems pretty clearly designed to fish for that latter. I think it's a bad letter because Congress is trying to abrogate their responsibilities and act like this is AT&T's problem, when it isn't. They need to break up the monopolies and give people the tools to hold these businesses accountable, as you said.
        jolux 6y ago
        >There is a difference between criticism of this government and agitprop designed to undermine the system of government. The 1A is designed to prevent the former, and this letter seems pretty clearly designed to fish for that latter. I mostly agree on the merits, but arguing this point is difficult because regardless of what the 1A was designed to do, at this point its legal interpretation has become broad enough that it's hard to imagine the government having a legitimate role in regulating speech here. The framers don't seem to have foreseen a crisis like we face. >I think it's a bad letter because Congress is trying to abrogate their responsibilities and act like this is AT&T's problem, when it isn't. They need to break up the monopolies and give people the tools to hold these businesses accountable, as you said. Yes, the effect that the cable companies have on the television market makes it very difficult for individuals to take effective action against these organizations. I think Congress should be investigating antitrust action against the cable companies, but these don't seem to be bad questions to asking them while they still make up a monopoly.
- sleepysysadmin 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. It's kind of interesting. In 1 reading you can say there's no demand but when I read it there's multiple demands from the federal government. It's similar to Trump and inciting violence. In 1 reading you can say Trump never incited violence but when I read Trumps' words he incited violence. The democrat government absolutely demanded right-wing media be removed from their platform.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
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 seeing it? Really?
- ulucs 6y ago
  It's like reading a Politico fact check on a democrat.
dang 6y ago
The submitted title was "House Democrats Demand Cable Providers to Censor Misinformation [pdf]". That broke the site guidelines by editorializing. We've changed it now to something that is hopefully more accurate. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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.
    - jolux 6y ago
      That's not really the case. The government is accountable to the public, but it also has the power to conceal things from the public, and take unilateral action in the case of the executive branch. What I mean by "the public" are individuals cooperating to boycott organizations they see as corrosive to democracy, which is the typical solution for problems like this. The government is expressly and pretty strongly forbidden from regulating speech by our constitution, which is the mechanism by which the government is accountable to the people.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - arrosenberg 6y ago
        I tend to disagree with the notion that this letter is chilling on free speech. There is a difference between criticism of this government and agitprop designed to undermine the system of government. The 1A is designed to prevent the former, and this letter seems pretty clearly designed to fish for that latter. I think it's a bad letter because Congress is trying to abrogate their responsibilities and act like this is AT&T's problem, when it isn't. They need to break up the monopolies and give people the tools to hold these businesses accountable, as you said.
        jolux 6y ago
        >There is a difference between criticism of this government and agitprop designed to undermine the system of government. The 1A is designed to prevent the former, and this letter seems pretty clearly designed to fish for that latter. I mostly agree on the merits, but arguing this point is difficult because regardless of what the 1A was designed to do, at this point its legal interpretation has become broad enough that it's hard to imagine the government having a legitimate role in regulating speech here. The framers don't seem to have foreseen a crisis like we face. >I think it's a bad letter because Congress is trying to abrogate their responsibilities and act like this is AT&T's problem, when it isn't. They need to break up the monopolies and give people the tools to hold these businesses accountable, as you said. Yes, the effect that the cable companies have on the television market makes it very difficult for individuals to take effective action against these organizations. I think Congress should be investigating antitrust action against the cable companies, but these don't seem to be bad questions to asking them while they still make up a monopoly.
sleepysysadmin 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. It's kind of interesting. In 1 reading you can say there's no demand but when I read it there's multiple demands from the federal government. It's similar to Trump and inciting violence. In 1 reading you can say Trump never incited violence but when I read Trumps' words he incited violence. The democrat government absolutely demanded right-wing media be removed from their platform.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

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 seeing it? Really?

ulucs 6y ago
It's like reading a Politico fact check on a democrat.

dang 6y ago

The submitted title was "House Democrats Demand Cable Providers to Censor Misinformation [pdf]". That broke the site guidelines by editorializing. We've changed it now to something that is hopefully more accurate. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html