25 ms·

The Push for a “PBS for the Internet”

525 points by starkd 5y ago

ladyattis 5y ago
I would say the PBS digital work on YouTube has been quite good, especially the PBS Spacetime series.
Mizza 5y ago
But PBS is already on the internet.. I love public media and have worked in the public media industry, and what I think what we really need is PBS for conservatives. Can you name a _single_ conservative PBS/NPR host or program? Was there a _single_ time in the past 5 years they gave any legitimate consideration to the viewpoints that 50% of the country hold, or acknowledged the material conflict underlying their ideology? It's no wonder that a) Republicans are constantly pushing to cut public media funding and, more worryingly, b) that conservative-minded people end up going down the Alex Jones/QAnon/Alt-Right/Whatever rabbit hole, due to the total void of any rational discussion or intelligent and honest media leadership for the conservative and working classes.
- 0des 5y ago
  I hope some day the internet isn't separated by political factions, it's a much bigger place than just the American political system.
- JohnWhigham 5y ago
  Yup, this article is pretty hilarious and is just another example of how mainstream media continues to stick their noses up at any consideration of alternative viewpoints. PBS has largely followed the herd and has become yet another liberal lifestyle outlet that caters only to their liberal audience. How about we fix that first before talking about something else?
  - AnonymousOne 5y ago
    ^Low-quality comment. PBS is consistently rated as a reliable and unbiased source of information. You think it's a "liberal lifestyle outlet", but what evidence do you have to support this claim? What is your unbiased alternative? Maybe you should watch this series ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4aNmdL3Hr0&list=PL8dPuuaLjXtN07XYqqWSKpPrtNDiCHTzU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4aNmdL3Hr0&list=PL8dPuuaLjX...
    - toomim 5y ago
      > PBS is consistently rated as a reliable and unbiased source of information. Not quite -- PBS is rated reliable but biased left: https://www.adfontesmedia.com/static-mbc/ https://www.adfontesmedia.com/static-mbc/
  - bloaf 5y ago
    Studies that looked at bias in the media found PBS to be the most centrist of the major news organizations. People on the extremes of the political spectrum see PBS as biased against them, as they would any centrist organization.
    - kristopolous 5y ago
      Centrism is also an ideology https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_centrism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_centrism
    - toomim 5y ago
      Actually, PBS skews left in the adfontes study, which is the most detailed one I know: https://www.adfontesmedia.com/static-mbc/ https://www.adfontesmedia.com/static-mbc/
      - Mizza 5y ago
        Wow, this chart perfectly illustrates my original point. There is a great gaping hole in the upper right of that graph - there is no high-quality, right-skewed news, even though this is where I would assume just over half of the bulk of Americans would actually place their political beliefs. There's nothing of significance in between the Wall Street Journal and the New York Post, after which there is a steep cliff towards Breitbart and all of the horrors that come after it.
        Rapzid 5y ago
        Many possibilities for why this is apparently the case though. Could be a miss-match in who people identity/affiliate themselves with and where they actually land. Lot of talk of the "window" having moved in the passed decade. Possible middle-left bias ate up a bunch of those who would have been middle-right? A lot of moderate right pundits have landed at left biased orgs over the past years. Would be interesting to see what this chart would have looked like 15-20 years ago.
        5y ago
  - duxup 5y ago
    What I find strange is that the only media outlets that actually cover local rural topics in detail is my local NPR station. Often they're lumped together as "yet another liberal" with PBS .... but they're more and more often the only ones covering those ares / giving voice to folks out there media wise.
  - kaliali 5y ago
    PBS Principal Counsel Michael Beller Incites Political Violence In Radical Left-Wing Agenda saying we need to throw Molotov cocktails if Trump got back in office 2020. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1r2rdmWsPE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1r2rdmWsPE
  - libhack-hn 5y ago
    PBS Principal Counsel Michael Beller Incites Political Violence In Radical Left-Wing Agenda saying we need to throw Molotov cocktails at government buildings if Trump got back in office 2020. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1r2rdmWsPE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1r2rdmWsPE
    - l33t2328 5y ago
      Why are you copy pasting this comment everywhere?
- tekromancr 5y ago
  It's almost like Alex Jones/qanon/alt-right/whatever are the logical conclusions of the conservative ideology.
  - wizzwizz4 5y ago
    There is no “the conservative ideology” – unless you define the phrase in a way that makes your statement a tautology.
  - Mizza 5y ago
    It would be equally as foolish to say the logical conclusion of liberalism is Stalinism. The underlying fallacy is the idea that politics has any conclusions at all.
    - d6ba56c039d9 5y ago
      > The underlying fallacy is the idea that politics has any conclusions at all. I'd say that there are certain flavors of political thought that have an unfolding utopia built into them. With enough of XXXism, an optimal state is reached. It's an exercise for the reader to determine which sorts of philosophy of human organization have that notion built-in.
      - dane-pgp 5y ago
        Either your vagueness is intended to make the point that "both sides are just as bad as each other" (which is unhelpful because there are more than two sides to politics), or you're dogwhistling that it's "the other side" that has the terrible philosophy. Let me therefore try to clear up that ambiguity by offering a solution to your exercise: The most dangerous political philosophy is ethno-nationalism.
        d6ba56c039d9 5y ago
        >you're dogwhistling that it's "the other side" that has the terrible philosophy. I'm simply making the point that some political systems imply moving towards an ideal goal, others do not. It isn't like monarchies (by far the most common setup) are moving towards some ideal beyond stability. Communism most certainly was viewed as a work in progress. (side note: I'm sick of the term 'dog whistling'. That term itself implies a belief system.)
- crazy_horse 5y ago
  Their history shows tend to only be political if you perceive different viewpoints as political slant. The hosts undoubtedly are liberal elites, but I think they strive for objectivity more than most media.
- yetipetty 5y ago
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firing_Line_(TV_program) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firing_Line_(TV_program)
- setpatchaddress 5y ago
  Utter total fucking bullshit. (a) You seem to be under the impression that Republicans would sit still for a reasonable network with "conservative" opinion viewpoints. (That was the original Fox News pitch.) What makes you think so? How does that network avoid turning into Fox News over time? The outrage and fear mongering is why Fox News gets massive ratings. (b) You seem to believe the 'the media is liberal' trope, and that's wrong. It's always been wrong. Can you name an example? For fuck's sake, the press is largely responsible for depressing Gore's turnout in 2000, and Dukakis's in 1988. (Respectively, the crimes were being boring and looking goofy in a helmet. They made fun of them on the air, during ostensible news programs.) What exactly do you think conservatives actually wanted that they weren't getting from the newscasts at the time? I don't think the anchors lead with "Heil Satan" on NBC Nightly News. (c) Yes, Fox News is still a huge problem. https://jabberwocking.com/yes-fox-news-deserves-the-blame-for-american-rage/ https://jabberwocking.com/yes-fox-news-deserves-the-blame-fo... for a discussion. (d) Fox News and the myth of the liberal media both exist because Richard Nixon and his followers were unable to take legitimate criticism. https://www.mediamatters.org/fox-news/why-fox-news-exists https://www.mediamatters.org/fox-news/why-fox-news-exists
  - Mizza 5y ago
    I don't think this comment really needs to be addressed, but since you're making my point for me: public media doesn't need to chase ratings, and thus doesn't need to chase outrage, allowing for more nuanced and in-depth reporting.
    - CamTin 5y ago
      If you don't chase ratings, you're not chasing viewers, and you're not having much impact on discourse. The current toxic sludge of cable news sprouted up decades after public broadcasting had been around.
      - methodin 5y ago
        Why is having an impact on discourse important? It should not be the job of any media to alter arguments, viewpoints etc... it's job is to provide the facts for people to make their own opinions. The fact that we think media should be able to shape opinion is really the main problem here. Cable news chases profits and profits come from viewership which gets us into that negative feedback loop. Take away money and a lot of problems disappear.
- ewhanley 5y ago
  I am admittedly a big fan of PBS, so maybe I'm blind to it, but I don't see the bias. I can't name a single conservative show, I suppose, but I can't name a single liberal show either. News and televisions don't have to have a political slant. I think we are all (in the US) too accustomed to opinionated news programming and are left searching for the bias when presented with plain information. PBS presents a lot of history and art. I wouldn't consider either of these politically charged in their presentation. Again, maybe I'm just missing it, but I watch a lot of PBS programming.
  - libhack-hn 5y ago
    PBS Principal Counsel Michael Beller Incites Political Violence In Radical Left-Wing Agenda saying we need to throw Molotov cocktails at government buildings if Trump got back in office 2020. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1r2rdmWsPE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1r2rdmWsPE
  - nobody9999 5y ago
    >I can't name a single conservative show, I suppose, Firing Line[0] >but I can't name a single liberal show either. Frontline[1] The thing is that William F. Buckley, Jr. (who originated Firing Line), were he alive today, would be demonized as a RINO and closet socialist by those who claim the mantle of "conservative" today. Mostly because those who claim to be "conservative" aren't. Rather, many (not all) are radical reactionaries and not at all conservative. Feel free to disagree, but if you look at the policies and priorities of such conservatives as Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan and both Bushes, the only policy priorities that have been retained by those who currently claim to be conservative are support for big business, hatred of anything non-white, and bible-thumping morons. Everything else (small government, individual rights/liberty, equal opportunity, etc.) have fallen by the wayside. Feel free to disagree. Or don't and take the easy way out. But there's a reasonable and reasoned discussion to be had in that space. If you don't participate in that, the loss is yours. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firing_Line_(TV_program) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firing_Line_(TV_program) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontline_(American_TV_program) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontline_(American_TV_program...
- technofiend 5y ago
  NPR already airs opposing viewpoints regularly. I've heard them interview Republican senators and conservative commentators many times this year right alongside with people on the other side of the aisle. If you mean NPR needs to carve out some time dedicated to a particular political view, then perhaps your perception of them is the rest of the time they present an opposite view? In these highly politicized times perhaps it seems that way since people have trouble agreeing on things that are widely accepted and based on science, as one example. So any news that presents that as fact will naturally be dismissed as biased by anyone who disagrees. Personally I don't think it's really incumbent upon NPR to create more air time for that kind of disagreement; they should stick with the facts. People who disagree with fact-based journalism already have many other outlets and are (IHMO) disinclined to seek out anything that will challenge their views. Even so I daresay if someone is on a journey to find and listen to opposing viewpoints, the person who finds NPR to be a bastion of liberal values would be far more challenged by listening to Pacifica. If someone wants to really hear viewpoints left of center, they should try listening to Democracy Now for a week.
  - Mizza 5y ago
    Maybe some of this is regional. I listen to WNYC from New York and WHYY from Philadelphia, maybe the coverage is different in other regions. To give some examples, Bob Garfield and Brian Lehrer were openly hostile towards Trump in such a way to disparage all of the people who voted for him, which was half of the country. Now, this isn't actually the thing I have a problem with, and I think I actually prefer it when hosts wear their hearts on their sleeves. But, you could never find the level of distain of Obama for his drone strikes, surveillance and massive wealth transfers to the rich that you could find of Trump for his racist demeanor, xenophobic immigration policies and massive wealth transfers to the rich. A lot of my opinion is from working on the inside. Public media in the US, at least in the urban areas where I worked, is staffed _exclusively_ by Warren-type Democrats. They really believe that there is a correct view of the world, and that it is to be socially liberal and economically conservative - manifest through complex policy. Any other opinions - notably Bernie-ism or Trump-ism, are populist and to be dismissed as unserious.
- libhack-hn 5y ago
  PBS Principal Counsel Michael Beller Incites Political Violence In Radical Left-Wing Agenda saying we need to throw Molotov cocktails at government buildings if Trump got back in office 2020. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1r2rdmWsPE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1r2rdmWsPE
jds_ 5y ago
I would like to note that PBS does actually publish Youtube videos via PBS Digital Studios[0][1]. They have great creators making PBS quality content but in "Youtube" style formats with a wide range of topics (science, popular culture, art, food, news, and music). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PBS_Digital_Studios https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PBS_Digital_Studios [1] https://www.youtube.com/c/pbsdigitalstudios/channels https://www.youtube.com/c/pbsdigitalstudios/channels
- nwatson 5y ago
  We watch the full PBS NewsHour most nights, simulcast/streamed live on YouTube (also available on all/most PBS affiliates) ... and it's available for later viewing as well. Some would say it leans a bit left but I think it's the best unbiased presentation of (U.S.) national concerns. They get wide access for interview to the most relevant American and non-American persons across a wide range of topics and are not afraid to pose the tough questions.
  - kortilla 5y ago
    > Some would say it leans a bit left but I think it's the best unbiased presentation of (U.S.) national concerns It’s definitely “unbiased” as long as “unbiased” means “standard US neoliberal views”. I say this as a neoliberal who watches it. If you are watching news and it doesn’t seem unfair in some way to you, you agree with its editorial biases.
  - lsiebert 5y ago
    It's centrist, it's just that looking at facts instead of simply accepting what politicians say at face value often tends to lead to support for political talking points from the left. This isn't intrinsic to left or right wing ideologies, there are plenty of areas where nobody has a monopoly on good policy, but when it comes to Democratic and Republican political leaders, The Dems look to scientific consensus (climate change, public health, economic disparities) and factual information in deciding on policy outcomes, while the GOP has a preferred set of outcomes they are looking to support.
shadowgovt 5y ago
Interesting. Authorizing the CPB to support local reporting could be a bit of a game-changer for the current status quo. I don't know that the rest of the idea would work (there are an awful lot of reasons why Internet media isn't anything like broadcast media), but "subsidizing local reporting as a public good" is an idea I hadn't seen before.
duxup 5y ago
Well there is: https://www.pbs.org/video/ https://www.pbs.org/video/ Also PBS has a great kids games app(s) that are free with games that are fun / no ads. And PBS kids video app is again free, great content, no ads. If you're in the US and care about that content, I suggest contributing to your local station. The quality of the content from kids to adult is outstanding. It's not usual for me to browse a few streaming services and just end up watching PBS's content in the end. Maybe when it comes to the article they mean more accessible? But I'm not sure as they seem to ignore the PBS content available.
- cogman10 5y ago
  It appears the call is for more local journalism/programming online. PBS has great national and children's programs and does have broadcast local journalism/topics of interest. However, getting access to that online is more difficult. Do we need this? Meh.. IDK.
  - duxup 5y ago
    Well local PBS & NPR stations ... often do that. I'm not sure the article really makes it clear what the situation in the first place is, or if they know.
  - mumblemumble 5y ago
    I get that more from my local NPR affiliate than I do PBS. Which I think is perhaps appropriate, if we've got to make a choice between the two. Textual media are a somewhat smaller jump from radio than they are from TV, and also, at least in my area, public radio is already doing a lot more local journalism. The public television station has a fair bit of locally produced programming, but most of it isn't really journalistic.
    - plussed_reader 5y ago
      Kqed is both the npr radio and TV station for a good chunk of the sf bay area. I know in other markets this is not the same arrangement.
stevefrench93 5y ago
Wasn't that the point of Wikipedia? https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9793263/Nobody-trust-Wikipedia-founder-Larry-Sanger-warns.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9793263/Nobody-trus...
1-6 5y ago
If we just focus on video just a sec and not the ENTIRE INTERNET, PBS seems increasingly irrelevant in an era where YouTube has narrowed the gap between content creators and content consumers. I remember the 90's being filled with pledge drives so PBS can raise funding. The content was good at the time but it's no where near what YouTube has become. If we go back to this original article linked, who gets to decide what is disinformation/misinformation? Funding should not come from the government because that would introduce all sorts of bureaucracy and gatekeeping efforts by political policymakers.
- devwastaken 5y ago
  Problem is quality. "YouTube kids" is a big meme, because some of the most popular content creators were certainly not creating kid friendly content. Example being "spiderman and Elsa". In my opinion kids should not be on the internet. Not that we can reasonably stop them, but I don't at all believe YouTube is an equivalent to directed quality content like PBS.
  - ldiracdelta 5y ago
    I don't allow unrestricted access to the internet for my kids and they aren't allowed screens in any room except where others may see them and their screens all the time. Yes, it is friction and not perfection. The internet is a Victorian-era cesspool with raw sewage and dysentery everywhere. They'll have to learn how to not contract cholera as they grow up, but I also don't let them play with firearms or dabble with black-tar heroin.
    - asoneth 5y ago
      I agree, and that's one reason I like curated content such as PBS. We had some inappropriate/disturbing "next video" suggestions on YouTube that initially seemed OK at a distance or for the first few minutes that we didn't catch right away. So I wouldn't trust kids using YouTube except if an adult is setting the playlist and watching with them. Whereas the PBS Kids apps (and Scratch Jr, Kahn Kids, etc) have curated content that I trust. We still limit their screen time and monitor their use by working in the same room, but it's not nearly as risky to let them use it on their own.
bonaldi 5y ago
> decentralizing the distribution of quality news This is laudable - but it ignores the reality of aggregators and user behaviour in the attention economy. The audience is centralised, and increasingly so. The question becomes: how can a pluralistic public-service ecosystem flourish within that economy? In the UK the BBC has tried a number of routes for this, including sponsoring local reporters, external linking to local news outlets to try and share their audience and so on. None have really been successful but it's important that they keep trying -- and odd that a piece like this wouldn't mention the BBC at all, come to think of it.
- wizzwizz4 5y ago
  > The audience is centralised, and increasingly so. You could design a computer system that feels centralised, but is actually decentralised – like the Fediverse[0] – and have people use that. That'd solve this problem (if you had enough draw and interop to get people to switch). [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fediverse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fediverse
  - root_axis 5y ago
    I don't see how the fediverse solves this problem. Fediverse nodes are no different than websites with respect to information distribution.
    - wizzwizz4 5y ago
      Take YouTube. There is one of it. PeerTube, however, could potentially encompass all video-hosting sites.
      - root_axis 5y ago
        The global http network already encompasses all video-hosting sites. If YouTube were a cluster of PeerTube nodes nothing really changes, all the stated problems associated with YouTube's popularity remain. e.g. if YouTube nodes ban your videos and you have to move to a less popular node, you're facing the exact same problem as you would getting banned from YouTube today.
bloaf 5y ago
I don't think there needs to be a government owned internet media company. Sometimes I wonder how weird and wild a government run social media company would be. Open to US citizens only, identity verification required? No rules other than actual speech laws? No anonymity?
- kart23 5y ago
  We already have a government owned internet media company. https://www.voanews.com/ https://www.voanews.com/
- dredmorbius 5y ago
  Usenet was a first approximation of a government-run social network. I'm not suggesting that Usenet itself would serve as a model for a revived social discussion platform. But whilst it existed, it was supported in large part on the (publicy-funded) ARPANET, and through publicly-funded educational institutions (both public and private research universities relying strongly on government research funding, regardless of tuition income). In general parameters, it resembles the structure proposed in TFA: government funding, multiple independent institutions, many local and trusted serving their local communities. (Students, staff, and faculty rather than residents for the most part, but again, broadly, along the lines of what's being suggested.)
nikkinana 5y ago
I love government sponsored content for free, that's where I get all of my news and stuff. Except, wait, what, PBS isn't free? Don't we already pay taxes?
- _delirium 5y ago
  PBS is kind of a hybrid, with partial public funding, but with the majority of its funding coming from other revenue sources. It gets around 15% of its budget through grants from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (which in turn is funded by the federal government), the rest through a mix of fundraising and subscriptions. Some local PBS affiliates also get state/local support, or are hosted by a public entity like a university. That seems to have been Congress's intent, that it would be supported in part by federal funding, but not be a fully publicly run organization like the BBC.
  - olivermarks 5y ago
    PBS accepts large amounts from #bigAg, #bigPharma and various oligarch 'foundations'. The worry is that these huge entities shape the messaging. You won't ever hear monopolist Bill Gates critiqued on PBS or NPR for example...
    - pionar 5y ago
      That's certainly not true. NPR criticizes Bill Gates often as part of the "celebrity billionaire" group, and recently had a story about his affair with an employee.
      - olivermarks 5y ago
        'NPR’s funding from Gates “was not a factor in why or how we did the story,” reporter Pam Fessler says, adding that her reporting went beyond the voices quoted in her article. The story, nevertheless, is one of hundreds NPR has reported about the Gates Foundation or the work it funds, including myriad favorable pieces written from the perspective of Gates or its grantees.' https://www.cjr.org/criticism/gates-foundation-journalism-funding.php https://www.cjr.org/criticism/gates-foundation-journalism-fu...
throwawaysea 5y ago
This is what it says under "why it matters" in this article: > Revamping the structure and role of public media could be part of the solution to shoring up local media, decentralizing the distribution of quality news, and constraining Big Tech platforms' amplification of harmful or false information. Instead of creating another single content creator who can come with their own biases, what I would rather see is a government-run platform. The motivation above about constraining amplification of harmful or false information sounds too close to amplifying only what information the government wants to put out (in other words, propaganda). I would rather see a platform because it could be free of information control and censorship from a small set of Silicon Valley conglomerates.
dotcommand 5y ago
Pushed by whom? The German Marshall Fund? Oh a state think tank. Why? "way to shift the power dynamics in today's information wars." So PBS, NPR, etc were originally created to participate in information wars. Sort of like government funded propaganda? Is that what she is implying here? "constraining Big Tech platforms' amplification of harmful or false information." That's strange. Because Big Tech platforms amply authoritative sources - which most likely includes PBS. https://blog.youtube/inside-youtube/the-four-rs-of-responsibility-raise-and-reduce https://blog.youtube/inside-youtube/the-four-rs-of-responsib... I'm all for more competition. More options. It isn't healthy that we have such concentration of power in a few "algorithms". Not sure the "PBS of the Internet" will challenge it no more than C-SPAN challenged cable news.
somenewaccount1 5y ago
I can support efforts to create more Big Birds, but not more Elmo's. Worst child influence ever.
- brewdad 5y ago
  *Caillou has entered the chat*
  - brodouevencode 5y ago
    I would always put the channel on PBS kids and didn't mind much what was on because I trusted it, except for Calliou.
bississippi 5y ago
Is this a joke ? The news media seems to be conflating Internet with web. The whole idea of the internet is decentralization, “PBS for the internet” in my opinion would look like the “Great Chinese Firewall” https://www.wired.com/1997/06/china-3/ https://www.wired.com/1997/06/china-3/ And eventually like this https://www.amazon.com/Perfect-Police-State-Undercover-Surveillance-ebook/dp/B08HLP668T https://www.amazon.com/Perfect-Police-State-Undercover-Surve...
aty268 5y ago
What's interesting is PBS is much less aligned with the federal government than most private media outlets, to put it nicely. Not sure how that's happened.
- libhack-hn 5y ago
  PBS Principal Counsel Michael Beller Incites Political Violence In Radical Left-Wing Agenda saying we need to throw Molotov cocktails at government buildings if Trump got back in office 2020. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1r2rdmWsPE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1r2rdmWsPE
- ardit33 5y ago
  PBS is liberal aligned org. so it is perfectly aligned with the democratic party... which are in power now?
jonas21 5y ago
If you look at the history of the Public Broadcasting Act [1] that established the CPB and eventually PBS, it seems clear that it was passed in response to poorly-funded educational programming not being able to compete with high-budget commercial network TV. Its authors wanted to make it easier for smaller, non-commercial entities to produce and distribute high-quality educational content. In that regard, the Internet (aided by inexpensive video gear and editing software) has succeeded far beyond their wildest dreams. The breadth and depth of educational content available just on YouTube is incredible. The same forces that make it easy to produce and distribute educational content also make it easy to produce and distribute misinformation. This is a problem, but's unclear how a "PBS for the internet" would solve it. For example, if you look at the one concrete piece of legislation mentioned in the article: > The Local Journalism Sustainability Act takes a different approach to the government grant model. The bill would, for example, give a tax credit to people who donate to nonprofit newsrooms, or to small businesses who buy advertising at a nonprofit outlet. It's not clear to me why people wouldn't just choose to donate to or buy advertising in outlets that promote whatever form of misinformation or partisan information that suits their tastes. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Broadcasting_Act_of_1967 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Broadcasting_Act_of_196...
- gowld 5y ago
  Yes. Supply of PBS quality content is a solved problem. The unsolved problem is the demand side, people making better consumption choices. Legislation can't fix this, since the government doesn't have a unified view of what "good" content is, and is heavily interested in promoting various striped of partisan propaganda. Mr Rogers got broad bipartisan support. Today he's considered "left wing".
  - djrogers 5y ago
    > Mr Rogers got broad bipartisan support. Today he's considered "left wing". I’ve never heard any “right-wing” people, even crazy in-law types, call Mr Rogers “left-wing”.
    - 5y ago
dunk010 5y ago
Crash Course is pretty close to PBS.
ThomPete 5y ago
The internet IS a PBS
chadlavi 5y ago
That was supposed to be the entire internet
5faulker 5y ago
Isn't the Internet slowly moving towards that direction anyway?
joelbondurant 5y ago
We need robots to put the public sector into a furnace.
minikites 5y ago
There should be more publicly funded media of all kinds. It significantly improves society to have art, entertainment, and educational materials created without a profit motive in mind.
sebastianconcpt 5y ago
And when the demand is near zero traffic, what? Legislate being mandatory to navigate it at least X hours per month? This is just the mainstream ideologic factory trying to expand itself.
andrewmcwatters 5y ago
I had this exact idea years ago and shared it with colleagues in the tech sector in Phoenix, AZ. The primacy of the idea also stemmed from the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967[1] as discussed in this article. We agreed on many common points, but could not think of how one would create an NPR-inspired version of essentially Reddit/Digg/Slashdot without first-party curation, which completely kills the idea of a social news aggregate. I think unfortunately the idea is incompatible without heavy handed moderation. Hacker News seems to attract the rightish crowd, though, so maybe it can be done. NPR attracts the sort of crowd I'm looking for in a social news aggregator. I'm not a teenager anymore. I'm looking for less memes and more interesting reading that publications of yesteryear seem to produce less and less of each year. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Broadcasting_Act_of_1967 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Broadcasting_Act_of_196...
Semiapies 5y ago
This doesn't seem to be much of a push or much of a coherent vision, just hand-waving, a little grab-bag of popular ideas, and a wish for more federal money.
JaggerFoo 5y ago
So boring content that everyone says they like, but never consume, with constant requests for donations. So what would be the purpose? Current trusted platforms are ignored and news outlets that report on ignorant humans with wacko theories defying reality are thriving. One or more additional trusted platform will not make a difference.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  > So boring content that everyone says they like, but never consume, with constant requests for donations. #notallnprlisteners #notallnprstations
  - Noos 5y ago
    No, NPR is the Ikea of radio. It should be roundly mocked a lot more than it is.
xyzzy21 5y ago
Modern "Woke" PBS or old school PBS? Only the latter is useful or good.
kragen 5y ago
NSFNet was a PBS for the Internet.
disabled 5y ago
We already have this in Croatia! It works great! It’s called CARNET. See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CARNet https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CARNet You can also get extremely cheap access to CARNET via mobile and broadband providers in Croatia. They are CARNET only plans.
zdw 5y ago
Historically we had public access to the cable network as a part of the cable act of 1984 - in the 80's and 90's there was a concept of PEG - Public, Educational, and Governmental TV channels that the Cable company had to carry as a part of being able to put lines in the ground. https://www.fcc.gov/media/public-educational-and-governmental-access-channels-peg-channels https://www.fcc.gov/media/public-educational-and-governmenta... The distribution side of this was made mostly irrelevant by on-demand services like YouTube - where it still exists it's mostly videography training, or making other local content, with a few channels still playing tapes.
runbathtime 5y ago
PBS should be privately funded.
- kristopolous 5y ago
  Then it would respond to and have the same structure as everything else. It's not diversity, it's making everything the same A rich media landscape is about diversity of structure, not about having a bunch of news brands by the same powerful groups in society that are simply demographically targeted to different consumers. Diverse structures producing well funded content. That's how you get a rich media
  - runbathtime 5y ago
    Diversity of thought is a problem. Diversity as commonly defined only by race is being promoted everywhere.
satellite2 5y ago
Everyone here discuss a new online newspaper. It would be refreshing to get intelligent content for free and not hidden between an amrmada of paywalls but would not be not enough. At this point, to protect democracy and its values, full fledged state sponsored reverse troll farms are what we desperatly need. A lot of the engagement is simply led by fake accounts piloted by humans and thus realistic enough to break the organic engagement detection model. Creating positive content is not enough to win this war. Only using the same dirty tactics as the autocrats will allow democracy to survive.
- Nasrudith 5y ago
  So what would the difference be between the two again and why should we trust "our" state sponsored troll farms? Frankly that logic is like suggesting we need to molest our kids at home to protect them from being molested by teachers and clergy.
  - satellite2 5y ago
    That's if you believe there is nothing that clearly distiguish intrinsically antidemocratic and divisive ideas from otherwise. I believe there is a huge space of ideas that are clearly worth defending at all cost without ever being partisan. I understand your metaphor but I think it's closer to the paradox of intolerance, you generally escape it only by having to be intolerant to the most intolerant.
France_is_bacon 5y ago
Just to let you know, everything is political. I'm independent politically, but PBS is the Fox of the liberals. Completely biased.
Wolfenstein98k 5y ago
Terrible idea - just another entity to be ideologically captured. Until we figure out how to actually enshrine political diversity, this will end up staffed entirely by people of a certain politics, and will become despised by many on the other side.
cdolan 5y ago
If I was in charge, I'd try to find as many non-spammy and wholesome Content Creators, like Mark Rober or Dustin /w Smarter Every Day, and have them figure out a way to scale a program/syndication that attracts content creators similar to them. Youtube is great. You can learn anything on Youtube... but Youtube is also filled with absolute trash childrens programming that literally rots my kids' brains as they watch it. Thats not to mention the unfathomable child porn rings that were caught time-stamp commenting unintentionally suggestive poses by underage kids... We need a curated Youtube for the curious mind that doesn't waste my time with 3 minutes of content stretched to 11 mins to get monetized.
- Avery3R 5y ago
  Aren't they already trying that with the nebula/curiositystream thing they advertise endlessly?
  - cdolan 5y ago
    Maybe, but two things: - I follow both channels pretty closely and I don't know what you are talking about. So it must not be working that well? - It sounds like they are doing this nebula/curiositystream thing themselves. If someone/the government funded them or just gave them control over a program I bet they would have an even bigger impact.
jscipione 5y ago
The last thing we need is yet another radical partisan anti-conservative US government agency like NRP, PBS, FBI, USPS, and IRS.
egypturnash 5y ago
Holy crap I did not know how badly I wanted “a PBS for the Internet” until I read that sentence. Grants for media designed to educate and inform, free of the constraints of “what sells” and “what doesn’t offend the advertisers”. With, yes, some actual control over the content instead of the current world where anything goes as long as it’s not explicitly breaking a law, or annoying one of the five immense vertically-integrated media corporations that have destroyed the public domain. Fuck. How do we make this happen.
stapedium 5y ago
It’s called computers at your public library.
every 5y ago
PBS, NPR and local affiliates of both have long been on the web. All you need to do is frequent and support them...
- fortuna86 5y ago
  Frontline continues to be the best documentary series available anywhere.
l00sed 5y ago
The Internet has replaced public broadcasting altogether through its own innovation. As I understand, "broadcast" originated from the "broad casting" of seeds. The Internet, on the other hand is bi-directional and interactive. It favors participation over consumption compared to television. The means of distributing information really transitions when adoption is ubiquitous. Literacy and the printing press, radios, televisions, to PCs and smartphones. The physical later of the network of distribution changes with each transition. These structures have inherent directionality and balance (or imbalance) in their nodes and connections that have some truly fascinating real-world results on the quality of how information travels, thrives or dies. The question of control and power also becomes an interesting network dynamic. The Internet is surprisingly more spatial than other media networks. Websites can now provide a connection to actual virtual worlds. Herein, I think, lies the biggest innovation. Now Facebook, LinkedIn, Reddit and others have a method to try and reproduce or reinvent a virtual public square or public house! Broadcast television requires a paid subscription to view online for NBC and ABC and CBS. There are a growing number of companies that I'm starting to see re-broadcast local broadcast TV on the web for free. It really ought to be illegal for these broadcast channels to charge for a digital copy of free broadcast television by all counts as far as I am concerned. I think that's completely backwards. I also think that social media has largely replaced the public square. It's a gross distortion because of the the skewed shapes and control of these networks. Twitter has literally silenced a president (which I didn't protest), but it is worrisome how these networks can exert so much power over information. To me, the real "PBS of the Internet" would have to exist as separate networks. I love the article's reference to libraries and other community centers, but I think it falls short in not suggesting something more along the lines of a community _network_ rather than another online service. Examples I would point to are the SNET in Cuba or the NYC Mesh Network. Here in Pittsburgh there is a growing PittMesh network. I think by creating something controlled and owned by the community that uses it, you decentralize information. This, I think, would encourage local news over conspiracy theories and perhaps provide a sheltering proxy to the the global web. What an exciting topic. VR feels like a whole other story haha If anyone would like to read some of my thoughts on these topics, I'd love for you to check some of my writing and leave a comment there. I love thinking about this stuff: https://l-o-o-s-e-d.net/public-internet https://l-o-o-s-e-d.net/public-internet
jackcosgrove 5y ago
This seems like fighting the last war. When I hear "PBS for the internet" I think publicly-funded content. Content on the internet doesn't have pride of place like it does on broadcast media. The internet is about platforms. "PBS for the internet" should be about creating, first, open standards for content distribution, promotion, and moderation. And then maybe implementing those standards. Content is basically free on the internet with the right platform. Trying to counter misinformation with good content is boiling the ocean. The better way to spread good content is to create standards and maybe a platform that incentivizes third parties to make good content.
- fortuna86 5y ago
  > The better way to spread good content is to create standards and maybe a platform that incentivizes third parties to make good content. In the article, it says exactly this. Their standards for transparency will be a model for other outlets.
shirro 5y ago
While PBS is a player (Spacetime, Eons, Deep Look etc) science/tech content is covered in much greater depth and with more expertise on Youtube than anything that was ever on traditional broadcast tv if you curate your subscriptions. Other public broadcasters like the BBC and Australian ABC have been into digital, particularly for news and kids content for ages. My kids stream our public broadcaster's kids only channel full of high quality content like Bluey from their devices and have for many years. Perhap the US needs to open up more to content from elsewhere though there are geo-blocking issues as a lot of public funded content is only free in the local market then sold to foreign markets. So what is on the public broadcaster for me is Disney or Netflix content for others.
Bud 5y ago
This seems like a great idea. However, I'd argue we do already have one institution that resembles the ideals of a PBS for the Internet: Wikipedia. Is any other institution not driven by a profit motive and also even a tenth as valuable to the public? I'd say not.
spfzero 5y ago
If you watch news on PBS, you see essentially the same stories, covered in the same way, as you see on any other network. Try comparing them as an experiment, it is enlightening.
ffggvv 5y ago
any and all of these become instantly captured by people with a political agenda and used as a propaganda source. which is exactly what they want.
jimmySixDOF 5y ago
A few posts here bring up the BBC and while it is an interesting case because they are so specifically funded by the public through a "TV License" [1], I think maybe a better comparison for this "Public Internet" should be to CSPAN. Using the CSPAN model, a public good commons of internet services would be carved out through an offset program in Wireless Spectrum auctions and other Telecom Service Provider Licenses and renewals [2]. Maybe if they ever get around to the Big Tech Tax that could help too. [1] You must have a TV Licence if you: watch or record programmes on a TV, computer or other device as they're broadcast. download or watch BBC programmes on iPlayer – live, catch up or on demand. £159 for a colour TV Licence and £53.50 for a black and white TV Licence https://www.gov.uk/tv-licence https://www.gov.uk/tv-licence [2] C-SPAN is a private, nonprofit organization funded by its cable and satellite affiliates, and it does not have advertisements on any of its networks, radio stations, or websites, nor does it solicit donations or pledges.
voidnullnil 5y ago
> Reality check: Allowing people to "tune" their own content preference dials could exacerbate filter bubbles. No thanks, I don't need someone to choose what I read. I am a "hacker", after all.

525 points by starkd 5y ago

I would say the PBS digital work on YouTube has been quite good, especially the PBS Spacetime series.

But PBS is already on the internet.. I love public media and have worked in the public media industry, and what I think what we really need is PBS for conservatives. Can you name a _single_ conservative PBS/NPR host or program? Was there a _single_ time in the past 5 years they gave any legitimate consideration to the viewpoints that 50% of the country hold, or acknowledged the material conflict underlying their ideology? It's no wonder that a) Republicans are constantly pushing to cut public media funding and, more worryingly, b) that conservative-minded people end up going down the Alex Jones/QAnon/Alt-Right/Whatever rabbit hole, due to the total void of any rational discussion or intelligent and honest media leadership for the conservative and working classes.

0des 5y ago
I hope some day the internet isn't separated by political factions, it's a much bigger place than just the American political system.
JohnWhigham 5y ago
Yup, this article is pretty hilarious and is just another example of how mainstream media continues to stick their noses up at any consideration of alternative viewpoints. PBS has largely followed the herd and has become yet another liberal lifestyle outlet that caters only to their liberal audience. How about we fix that first before talking about something else?
- AnonymousOne 5y ago
  ^Low-quality comment. PBS is consistently rated as a reliable and unbiased source of information. You think it's a "liberal lifestyle outlet", but what evidence do you have to support this claim? What is your unbiased alternative? Maybe you should watch this series ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4aNmdL3Hr0&list=PL8dPuuaLjXtN07XYqqWSKpPrtNDiCHTzU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4aNmdL3Hr0&list=PL8dPuuaLjX...
  - toomim 5y ago
    > PBS is consistently rated as a reliable and unbiased source of information. Not quite -- PBS is rated reliable but biased left: https://www.adfontesmedia.com/static-mbc/ https://www.adfontesmedia.com/static-mbc/
- bloaf 5y ago
  Studies that looked at bias in the media found PBS to be the most centrist of the major news organizations. People on the extremes of the political spectrum see PBS as biased against them, as they would any centrist organization.
  - kristopolous 5y ago
    Centrism is also an ideology https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_centrism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_centrism
  - toomim 5y ago
    Actually, PBS skews left in the adfontes study, which is the most detailed one I know: https://www.adfontesmedia.com/static-mbc/ https://www.adfontesmedia.com/static-mbc/
    - Mizza 5y ago
      Wow, this chart perfectly illustrates my original point. There is a great gaping hole in the upper right of that graph - there is no high-quality, right-skewed news, even though this is where I would assume just over half of the bulk of Americans would actually place their political beliefs. There's nothing of significance in between the Wall Street Journal and the New York Post, after which there is a steep cliff towards Breitbart and all of the horrors that come after it.
      - Rapzid 5y ago
        Many possibilities for why this is apparently the case though. Could be a miss-match in who people identity/affiliate themselves with and where they actually land. Lot of talk of the "window" having moved in the passed decade. Possible middle-left bias ate up a bunch of those who would have been middle-right? A lot of moderate right pundits have landed at left biased orgs over the past years. Would be interesting to see what this chart would have looked like 15-20 years ago.
        5y ago
- duxup 5y ago
  What I find strange is that the only media outlets that actually cover local rural topics in detail is my local NPR station. Often they're lumped together as "yet another liberal" with PBS .... but they're more and more often the only ones covering those ares / giving voice to folks out there media wise.
- kaliali 5y ago
  PBS Principal Counsel Michael Beller Incites Political Violence In Radical Left-Wing Agenda saying we need to throw Molotov cocktails if Trump got back in office 2020. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1r2rdmWsPE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1r2rdmWsPE
- libhack-hn 5y ago
  PBS Principal Counsel Michael Beller Incites Political Violence In Radical Left-Wing Agenda saying we need to throw Molotov cocktails at government buildings if Trump got back in office 2020. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1r2rdmWsPE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1r2rdmWsPE
  - l33t2328 5y ago
    Why are you copy pasting this comment everywhere?
tekromancr 5y ago
It's almost like Alex Jones/qanon/alt-right/whatever are the logical conclusions of the conservative ideology.
- wizzwizz4 5y ago
  There is no “the conservative ideology” – unless you define the phrase in a way that makes your statement a tautology.
- Mizza 5y ago
  It would be equally as foolish to say the logical conclusion of liberalism is Stalinism. The underlying fallacy is the idea that politics has any conclusions at all.
  - d6ba56c039d9 5y ago
    > The underlying fallacy is the idea that politics has any conclusions at all. I'd say that there are certain flavors of political thought that have an unfolding utopia built into them. With enough of XXXism, an optimal state is reached. It's an exercise for the reader to determine which sorts of philosophy of human organization have that notion built-in.
    - dane-pgp 5y ago
      Either your vagueness is intended to make the point that "both sides are just as bad as each other" (which is unhelpful because there are more than two sides to politics), or you're dogwhistling that it's "the other side" that has the terrible philosophy. Let me therefore try to clear up that ambiguity by offering a solution to your exercise: The most dangerous political philosophy is ethno-nationalism.
      - d6ba56c039d9 5y ago
        >you're dogwhistling that it's "the other side" that has the terrible philosophy. I'm simply making the point that some political systems imply moving towards an ideal goal, others do not. It isn't like monarchies (by far the most common setup) are moving towards some ideal beyond stability. Communism most certainly was viewed as a work in progress. (side note: I'm sick of the term 'dog whistling'. That term itself implies a belief system.)
crazy_horse 5y ago
Their history shows tend to only be political if you perceive different viewpoints as political slant. The hosts undoubtedly are liberal elites, but I think they strive for objectivity more than most media.
yetipetty 5y ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firing_Line_(TV_program) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firing_Line_(TV_program)
setpatchaddress 5y ago
Utter total fucking bullshit. (a) You seem to be under the impression that Republicans would sit still for a reasonable network with "conservative" opinion viewpoints. (That was the original Fox News pitch.) What makes you think so? How does that network avoid turning into Fox News over time? The outrage and fear mongering is why Fox News gets massive ratings. (b) You seem to believe the 'the media is liberal' trope, and that's wrong. It's always been wrong. Can you name an example? For fuck's sake, the press is largely responsible for depressing Gore's turnout in 2000, and Dukakis's in 1988. (Respectively, the crimes were being boring and looking goofy in a helmet. They made fun of them on the air, during ostensible news programs.) What exactly do you think conservatives actually wanted that they weren't getting from the newscasts at the time? I don't think the anchors lead with "Heil Satan" on NBC Nightly News. (c) Yes, Fox News is still a huge problem. https://jabberwocking.com/yes-fox-news-deserves-the-blame-for-american-rage/ https://jabberwocking.com/yes-fox-news-deserves-the-blame-fo... for a discussion. (d) Fox News and the myth of the liberal media both exist because Richard Nixon and his followers were unable to take legitimate criticism. https://www.mediamatters.org/fox-news/why-fox-news-exists https://www.mediamatters.org/fox-news/why-fox-news-exists
- Mizza 5y ago
  I don't think this comment really needs to be addressed, but since you're making my point for me: public media doesn't need to chase ratings, and thus doesn't need to chase outrage, allowing for more nuanced and in-depth reporting.
  - CamTin 5y ago
    If you don't chase ratings, you're not chasing viewers, and you're not having much impact on discourse. The current toxic sludge of cable news sprouted up decades after public broadcasting had been around.
    - methodin 5y ago
      Why is having an impact on discourse important? It should not be the job of any media to alter arguments, viewpoints etc... it's job is to provide the facts for people to make their own opinions. The fact that we think media should be able to shape opinion is really the main problem here. Cable news chases profits and profits come from viewership which gets us into that negative feedback loop. Take away money and a lot of problems disappear.
ewhanley 5y ago
I am admittedly a big fan of PBS, so maybe I'm blind to it, but I don't see the bias. I can't name a single conservative show, I suppose, but I can't name a single liberal show either. News and televisions don't have to have a political slant. I think we are all (in the US) too accustomed to opinionated news programming and are left searching for the bias when presented with plain information. PBS presents a lot of history and art. I wouldn't consider either of these politically charged in their presentation. Again, maybe I'm just missing it, but I watch a lot of PBS programming.
- libhack-hn 5y ago
  PBS Principal Counsel Michael Beller Incites Political Violence In Radical Left-Wing Agenda saying we need to throw Molotov cocktails at government buildings if Trump got back in office 2020. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1r2rdmWsPE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1r2rdmWsPE
- nobody9999 5y ago
  >I can't name a single conservative show, I suppose, Firing Line[0] >but I can't name a single liberal show either. Frontline[1] The thing is that William F. Buckley, Jr. (who originated Firing Line), were he alive today, would be demonized as a RINO and closet socialist by those who claim the mantle of "conservative" today. Mostly because those who claim to be "conservative" aren't. Rather, many (not all) are radical reactionaries and not at all conservative. Feel free to disagree, but if you look at the policies and priorities of such conservatives as Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan and both Bushes, the only policy priorities that have been retained by those who currently claim to be conservative are support for big business, hatred of anything non-white, and bible-thumping morons. Everything else (small government, individual rights/liberty, equal opportunity, etc.) have fallen by the wayside. Feel free to disagree. Or don't and take the easy way out. But there's a reasonable and reasoned discussion to be had in that space. If you don't participate in that, the loss is yours. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firing_Line_(TV_program) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firing_Line_(TV_program) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontline_(American_TV_program) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontline_(American_TV_program...
technofiend 5y ago
NPR already airs opposing viewpoints regularly. I've heard them interview Republican senators and conservative commentators many times this year right alongside with people on the other side of the aisle. If you mean NPR needs to carve out some time dedicated to a particular political view, then perhaps your perception of them is the rest of the time they present an opposite view? In these highly politicized times perhaps it seems that way since people have trouble agreeing on things that are widely accepted and based on science, as one example. So any news that presents that as fact will naturally be dismissed as biased by anyone who disagrees. Personally I don't think it's really incumbent upon NPR to create more air time for that kind of disagreement; they should stick with the facts. People who disagree with fact-based journalism already have many other outlets and are (IHMO) disinclined to seek out anything that will challenge their views. Even so I daresay if someone is on a journey to find and listen to opposing viewpoints, the person who finds NPR to be a bastion of liberal values would be far more challenged by listening to Pacifica. If someone wants to really hear viewpoints left of center, they should try listening to Democracy Now for a week.
- Mizza 5y ago
  Maybe some of this is regional. I listen to WNYC from New York and WHYY from Philadelphia, maybe the coverage is different in other regions. To give some examples, Bob Garfield and Brian Lehrer were openly hostile towards Trump in such a way to disparage all of the people who voted for him, which was half of the country. Now, this isn't actually the thing I have a problem with, and I think I actually prefer it when hosts wear their hearts on their sleeves. But, you could never find the level of distain of Obama for his drone strikes, surveillance and massive wealth transfers to the rich that you could find of Trump for his racist demeanor, xenophobic immigration policies and massive wealth transfers to the rich. A lot of my opinion is from working on the inside. Public media in the US, at least in the urban areas where I worked, is staffed _exclusively_ by Warren-type Democrats. They really believe that there is a correct view of the world, and that it is to be socially liberal and economically conservative - manifest through complex policy. Any other opinions - notably Bernie-ism or Trump-ism, are populist and to be dismissed as unserious.
libhack-hn 5y ago
PBS Principal Counsel Michael Beller Incites Political Violence In Radical Left-Wing Agenda saying we need to throw Molotov cocktails at government buildings if Trump got back in office 2020. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1r2rdmWsPE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1r2rdmWsPE

jds_ 5y ago

I would like to note that PBS does actually publish Youtube videos via PBS Digital Studios[0][1]. They have great creators making PBS quality content but in "Youtube" style formats with a wide range of topics (science, popular culture, art, food, news, and music). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PBS_Digital_Studios https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PBS_Digital_Studios [1] https://www.youtube.com/c/pbsdigitalstudios/channels https://www.youtube.com/c/pbsdigitalstudios/channels

nwatson 5y ago
We watch the full PBS NewsHour most nights, simulcast/streamed live on YouTube (also available on all/most PBS affiliates) ... and it's available for later viewing as well. Some would say it leans a bit left but I think it's the best unbiased presentation of (U.S.) national concerns. They get wide access for interview to the most relevant American and non-American persons across a wide range of topics and are not afraid to pose the tough questions.
- kortilla 5y ago
  > Some would say it leans a bit left but I think it's the best unbiased presentation of (U.S.) national concerns It’s definitely “unbiased” as long as “unbiased” means “standard US neoliberal views”. I say this as a neoliberal who watches it. If you are watching news and it doesn’t seem unfair in some way to you, you agree with its editorial biases.
- lsiebert 5y ago
  It's centrist, it's just that looking at facts instead of simply accepting what politicians say at face value often tends to lead to support for political talking points from the left. This isn't intrinsic to left or right wing ideologies, there are plenty of areas where nobody has a monopoly on good policy, but when it comes to Democratic and Republican political leaders, The Dems look to scientific consensus (climate change, public health, economic disparities) and factual information in deciding on policy outcomes, while the GOP has a preferred set of outcomes they are looking to support.

shadowgovt 5y ago

Interesting. Authorizing the CPB to support local reporting could be a bit of a game-changer for the current status quo. I don't know that the rest of the idea would work (there are an awful lot of reasons why Internet media isn't anything like broadcast media), but "subsidizing local reporting as a public good" is an idea I hadn't seen before.

duxup 5y ago

Well there is: https://www.pbs.org/video/ https://www.pbs.org/video/ Also PBS has a great kids games app(s) that are free with games that are fun / no ads. And PBS kids video app is again free, great content, no ads. If you're in the US and care about that content, I suggest contributing to your local station. The quality of the content from kids to adult is outstanding. It's not usual for me to browse a few streaming services and just end up watching PBS's content in the end. Maybe when it comes to the article they mean more accessible? But I'm not sure as they seem to ignore the PBS content available.

cogman10 5y ago
It appears the call is for more local journalism/programming online. PBS has great national and children's programs and does have broadcast local journalism/topics of interest. However, getting access to that online is more difficult. Do we need this? Meh.. IDK.
- duxup 5y ago
  Well local PBS & NPR stations ... often do that. I'm not sure the article really makes it clear what the situation in the first place is, or if they know.
- mumblemumble 5y ago
  I get that more from my local NPR affiliate than I do PBS. Which I think is perhaps appropriate, if we've got to make a choice between the two. Textual media are a somewhat smaller jump from radio than they are from TV, and also, at least in my area, public radio is already doing a lot more local journalism. The public television station has a fair bit of locally produced programming, but most of it isn't really journalistic.
  - plussed_reader 5y ago
    Kqed is both the npr radio and TV station for a good chunk of the sf bay area. I know in other markets this is not the same arrangement.

stevefrench93 5y ago

Wasn't that the point of Wikipedia? https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9793263/Nobody-trust-Wikipedia-founder-Larry-Sanger-warns.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9793263/Nobody-trus...

1-6 5y ago

If we just focus on video just a sec and not the ENTIRE INTERNET, PBS seems increasingly irrelevant in an era where YouTube has narrowed the gap between content creators and content consumers. I remember the 90's being filled with pledge drives so PBS can raise funding. The content was good at the time but it's no where near what YouTube has become. If we go back to this original article linked, who gets to decide what is disinformation/misinformation? Funding should not come from the government because that would introduce all sorts of bureaucracy and gatekeeping efforts by political policymakers.

devwastaken 5y ago
Problem is quality. "YouTube kids" is a big meme, because some of the most popular content creators were certainly not creating kid friendly content. Example being "spiderman and Elsa". In my opinion kids should not be on the internet. Not that we can reasonably stop them, but I don't at all believe YouTube is an equivalent to directed quality content like PBS.
- ldiracdelta 5y ago
  I don't allow unrestricted access to the internet for my kids and they aren't allowed screens in any room except where others may see them and their screens all the time. Yes, it is friction and not perfection. The internet is a Victorian-era cesspool with raw sewage and dysentery everywhere. They'll have to learn how to not contract cholera as they grow up, but I also don't let them play with firearms or dabble with black-tar heroin.
  - asoneth 5y ago
    I agree, and that's one reason I like curated content such as PBS. We had some inappropriate/disturbing "next video" suggestions on YouTube that initially seemed OK at a distance or for the first few minutes that we didn't catch right away. So I wouldn't trust kids using YouTube except if an adult is setting the playlist and watching with them. Whereas the PBS Kids apps (and Scratch Jr, Kahn Kids, etc) have curated content that I trust. We still limit their screen time and monitor their use by working in the same room, but it's not nearly as risky to let them use it on their own.

bonaldi 5y ago

> decentralizing the distribution of quality news This is laudable - but it ignores the reality of aggregators and user behaviour in the attention economy. The audience is centralised, and increasingly so. The question becomes: how can a pluralistic public-service ecosystem flourish within that economy? In the UK the BBC has tried a number of routes for this, including sponsoring local reporters, external linking to local news outlets to try and share their audience and so on. None have really been successful but it's important that they keep trying -- and odd that a piece like this wouldn't mention the BBC at all, come to think of it.

wizzwizz4 5y ago
> The audience is centralised, and increasingly so. You could design a computer system that feels centralised, but is actually decentralised – like the Fediverse[0] – and have people use that. That'd solve this problem (if you had enough draw and interop to get people to switch). [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fediverse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fediverse
- root_axis 5y ago
  I don't see how the fediverse solves this problem. Fediverse nodes are no different than websites with respect to information distribution.
  - wizzwizz4 5y ago
    Take YouTube. There is one of it. PeerTube, however, could potentially encompass all video-hosting sites.
    - root_axis 5y ago
      The global http network already encompasses all video-hosting sites. If YouTube were a cluster of PeerTube nodes nothing really changes, all the stated problems associated with YouTube's popularity remain. e.g. if YouTube nodes ban your videos and you have to move to a less popular node, you're facing the exact same problem as you would getting banned from YouTube today.

bloaf 5y ago

I don't think there needs to be a government owned internet media company. Sometimes I wonder how weird and wild a government run social media company would be. Open to US citizens only, identity verification required? No rules other than actual speech laws? No anonymity?

kart23 5y ago
We already have a government owned internet media company. https://www.voanews.com/ https://www.voanews.com/
dredmorbius 5y ago
Usenet was a first approximation of a government-run social network. I'm not suggesting that Usenet itself would serve as a model for a revived social discussion platform. But whilst it existed, it was supported in large part on the (publicy-funded) ARPANET, and through publicly-funded educational institutions (both public and private research universities relying strongly on government research funding, regardless of tuition income). In general parameters, it resembles the structure proposed in TFA: government funding, multiple independent institutions, many local and trusted serving their local communities. (Students, staff, and faculty rather than residents for the most part, but again, broadly, along the lines of what's being suggested.)

nikkinana 5y ago

I love government sponsored content for free, that's where I get all of my news and stuff. Except, wait, what, PBS isn't free? Don't we already pay taxes?

_delirium 5y ago
PBS is kind of a hybrid, with partial public funding, but with the majority of its funding coming from other revenue sources. It gets around 15% of its budget through grants from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (which in turn is funded by the federal government), the rest through a mix of fundraising and subscriptions. Some local PBS affiliates also get state/local support, or are hosted by a public entity like a university. That seems to have been Congress's intent, that it would be supported in part by federal funding, but not be a fully publicly run organization like the BBC.
- olivermarks 5y ago
  PBS accepts large amounts from #bigAg, #bigPharma and various oligarch 'foundations'. The worry is that these huge entities shape the messaging. You won't ever hear monopolist Bill Gates critiqued on PBS or NPR for example...
  - pionar 5y ago
    That's certainly not true. NPR criticizes Bill Gates often as part of the "celebrity billionaire" group, and recently had a story about his affair with an employee.
    - olivermarks 5y ago
      'NPR’s funding from Gates “was not a factor in why or how we did the story,” reporter Pam Fessler says, adding that her reporting went beyond the voices quoted in her article. The story, nevertheless, is one of hundreds NPR has reported about the Gates Foundation or the work it funds, including myriad favorable pieces written from the perspective of Gates or its grantees.' https://www.cjr.org/criticism/gates-foundation-journalism-funding.php https://www.cjr.org/criticism/gates-foundation-journalism-fu...

throwawaysea 5y ago

This is what it says under "why it matters" in this article: > Revamping the structure and role of public media could be part of the solution to shoring up local media, decentralizing the distribution of quality news, and constraining Big Tech platforms' amplification of harmful or false information. Instead of creating another single content creator who can come with their own biases, what I would rather see is a government-run platform. The motivation above about constraining amplification of harmful or false information sounds too close to amplifying only what information the government wants to put out (in other words, propaganda). I would rather see a platform because it could be free of information control and censorship from a small set of Silicon Valley conglomerates.

dotcommand 5y ago

Pushed by whom? The German Marshall Fund? Oh a state think tank. Why? "way to shift the power dynamics in today's information wars." So PBS, NPR, etc were originally created to participate in information wars. Sort of like government funded propaganda? Is that what she is implying here? "constraining Big Tech platforms' amplification of harmful or false information." That's strange. Because Big Tech platforms amply authoritative sources - which most likely includes PBS. https://blog.youtube/inside-youtube/the-four-rs-of-responsibility-raise-and-reduce https://blog.youtube/inside-youtube/the-four-rs-of-responsib... I'm all for more competition. More options. It isn't healthy that we have such concentration of power in a few "algorithms". Not sure the "PBS of the Internet" will challenge it no more than C-SPAN challenged cable news.

somenewaccount1 5y ago

I can support efforts to create more Big Birds, but not more Elmo's. Worst child influence ever.

brewdad 5y ago
*Caillou has entered the chat*
- brodouevencode 5y ago
  I would always put the channel on PBS kids and didn't mind much what was on because I trusted it, except for Calliou.

bississippi 5y ago

Is this a joke ? The news media seems to be conflating Internet with web. The whole idea of the internet is decentralization, “PBS for the internet” in my opinion would look like the “Great Chinese Firewall” https://www.wired.com/1997/06/china-3/ https://www.wired.com/1997/06/china-3/ And eventually like this https://www.amazon.com/Perfect-Police-State-Undercover-Surveillance-ebook/dp/B08HLP668T https://www.amazon.com/Perfect-Police-State-Undercover-Surve...

aty268 5y ago

What's interesting is PBS is much less aligned with the federal government than most private media outlets, to put it nicely. Not sure how that's happened.

libhack-hn 5y ago
PBS Principal Counsel Michael Beller Incites Political Violence In Radical Left-Wing Agenda saying we need to throw Molotov cocktails at government buildings if Trump got back in office 2020. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1r2rdmWsPE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1r2rdmWsPE
ardit33 5y ago
PBS is liberal aligned org. so it is perfectly aligned with the democratic party... which are in power now?

jonas21 5y ago

If you look at the history of the Public Broadcasting Act [1] that established the CPB and eventually PBS, it seems clear that it was passed in response to poorly-funded educational programming not being able to compete with high-budget commercial network TV. Its authors wanted to make it easier for smaller, non-commercial entities to produce and distribute high-quality educational content. In that regard, the Internet (aided by inexpensive video gear and editing software) has succeeded far beyond their wildest dreams. The breadth and depth of educational content available just on YouTube is incredible. The same forces that make it easy to produce and distribute educational content also make it easy to produce and distribute misinformation. This is a problem, but's unclear how a "PBS for the internet" would solve it. For example, if you look at the one concrete piece of legislation mentioned in the article: > The Local Journalism Sustainability Act takes a different approach to the government grant model. The bill would, for example, give a tax credit to people who donate to nonprofit newsrooms, or to small businesses who buy advertising at a nonprofit outlet. It's not clear to me why people wouldn't just choose to donate to or buy advertising in outlets that promote whatever form of misinformation or partisan information that suits their tastes. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Broadcasting_Act_of_1967 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Broadcasting_Act_of_196...

gowld 5y ago
Yes. Supply of PBS quality content is a solved problem. The unsolved problem is the demand side, people making better consumption choices. Legislation can't fix this, since the government doesn't have a unified view of what "good" content is, and is heavily interested in promoting various striped of partisan propaganda. Mr Rogers got broad bipartisan support. Today he's considered "left wing".
- djrogers 5y ago
  > Mr Rogers got broad bipartisan support. Today he's considered "left wing". I’ve never heard any “right-wing” people, even crazy in-law types, call Mr Rogers “left-wing”.
  - 5y ago

dunk010 5y ago

Crash Course is pretty close to PBS.

ThomPete 5y ago

The internet IS a PBS

chadlavi 5y ago

That was supposed to be the entire internet

5faulker 5y ago

Isn't the Internet slowly moving towards that direction anyway?

joelbondurant 5y ago

We need robots to put the public sector into a furnace.

minikites 5y ago

There should be more publicly funded media of all kinds. It significantly improves society to have art, entertainment, and educational materials created without a profit motive in mind.

sebastianconcpt 5y ago

And when the demand is near zero traffic, what? Legislate being mandatory to navigate it at least X hours per month? This is just the mainstream ideologic factory trying to expand itself.

andrewmcwatters 5y ago

I had this exact idea years ago and shared it with colleagues in the tech sector in Phoenix, AZ. The primacy of the idea also stemmed from the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967[1] as discussed in this article. We agreed on many common points, but could not think of how one would create an NPR-inspired version of essentially Reddit/Digg/Slashdot without first-party curation, which completely kills the idea of a social news aggregate. I think unfortunately the idea is incompatible without heavy handed moderation. Hacker News seems to attract the rightish crowd, though, so maybe it can be done. NPR attracts the sort of crowd I'm looking for in a social news aggregator. I'm not a teenager anymore. I'm looking for less memes and more interesting reading that publications of yesteryear seem to produce less and less of each year. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Broadcasting_Act_of_1967 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Broadcasting_Act_of_196...

Semiapies 5y ago

This doesn't seem to be much of a push or much of a coherent vision, just hand-waving, a little grab-bag of popular ideas, and a wish for more federal money.

JaggerFoo 5y ago

So boring content that everyone says they like, but never consume, with constant requests for donations. So what would be the purpose? Current trusted platforms are ignored and news outlets that report on ignorant humans with wacko theories defying reality are thriving. One or more additional trusted platform will not make a difference.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
> So boring content that everyone says they like, but never consume, with constant requests for donations. #notallnprlisteners #notallnprstations
- Noos 5y ago
  No, NPR is the Ikea of radio. It should be roundly mocked a lot more than it is.

xyzzy21 5y ago

Modern "Woke" PBS or old school PBS? Only the latter is useful or good.

kragen 5y ago

NSFNet was a PBS for the Internet.

disabled 5y ago

We already have this in Croatia! It works great! It’s called CARNET. See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CARNet https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CARNet You can also get extremely cheap access to CARNET via mobile and broadband providers in Croatia. They are CARNET only plans.

zdw 5y ago

Historically we had public access to the cable network as a part of the cable act of 1984 - in the 80's and 90's there was a concept of PEG - Public, Educational, and Governmental TV channels that the Cable company had to carry as a part of being able to put lines in the ground. https://www.fcc.gov/media/public-educational-and-governmental-access-channels-peg-channels https://www.fcc.gov/media/public-educational-and-governmenta... The distribution side of this was made mostly irrelevant by on-demand services like YouTube - where it still exists it's mostly videography training, or making other local content, with a few channels still playing tapes.

runbathtime 5y ago

PBS should be privately funded.

kristopolous 5y ago
Then it would respond to and have the same structure as everything else. It's not diversity, it's making everything the same A rich media landscape is about diversity of structure, not about having a bunch of news brands by the same powerful groups in society that are simply demographically targeted to different consumers. Diverse structures producing well funded content. That's how you get a rich media
- runbathtime 5y ago
  Diversity of thought is a problem. Diversity as commonly defined only by race is being promoted everywhere.

satellite2 5y ago

Everyone here discuss a new online newspaper. It would be refreshing to get intelligent content for free and not hidden between an amrmada of paywalls but would not be not enough. At this point, to protect democracy and its values, full fledged state sponsored reverse troll farms are what we desperatly need. A lot of the engagement is simply led by fake accounts piloted by humans and thus realistic enough to break the organic engagement detection model. Creating positive content is not enough to win this war. Only using the same dirty tactics as the autocrats will allow democracy to survive.

Nasrudith 5y ago
So what would the difference be between the two again and why should we trust "our" state sponsored troll farms? Frankly that logic is like suggesting we need to molest our kids at home to protect them from being molested by teachers and clergy.
- satellite2 5y ago
  That's if you believe there is nothing that clearly distiguish intrinsically antidemocratic and divisive ideas from otherwise. I believe there is a huge space of ideas that are clearly worth defending at all cost without ever being partisan. I understand your metaphor but I think it's closer to the paradox of intolerance, you generally escape it only by having to be intolerant to the most intolerant.

France_is_bacon 5y ago

Just to let you know, everything is political. I'm independent politically, but PBS is the Fox of the liberals. Completely biased.

Wolfenstein98k 5y ago

Terrible idea - just another entity to be ideologically captured. Until we figure out how to actually enshrine political diversity, this will end up staffed entirely by people of a certain politics, and will become despised by many on the other side.

cdolan 5y ago

If I was in charge, I'd try to find as many non-spammy and wholesome Content Creators, like Mark Rober or Dustin /w Smarter Every Day, and have them figure out a way to scale a program/syndication that attracts content creators similar to them. Youtube is great. You can learn anything on Youtube... but Youtube is also filled with absolute trash childrens programming that literally rots my kids' brains as they watch it. Thats not to mention the unfathomable child porn rings that were caught time-stamp commenting unintentionally suggestive poses by underage kids... We need a curated Youtube for the curious mind that doesn't waste my time with 3 minutes of content stretched to 11 mins to get monetized.

Avery3R 5y ago
Aren't they already trying that with the nebula/curiositystream thing they advertise endlessly?
- cdolan 5y ago
  Maybe, but two things: - I follow both channels pretty closely and I don't know what you are talking about. So it must not be working that well? - It sounds like they are doing this nebula/curiositystream thing themselves. If someone/the government funded them or just gave them control over a program I bet they would have an even bigger impact.

jscipione 5y ago

The last thing we need is yet another radical partisan anti-conservative US government agency like NRP, PBS, FBI, USPS, and IRS.

egypturnash 5y ago

Holy crap I did not know how badly I wanted “a PBS for the Internet” until I read that sentence. Grants for media designed to educate and inform, free of the constraints of “what sells” and “what doesn’t offend the advertisers”. With, yes, some actual control over the content instead of the current world where anything goes as long as it’s not explicitly breaking a law, or annoying one of the five immense vertically-integrated media corporations that have destroyed the public domain. Fuck. How do we make this happen.

stapedium 5y ago

It’s called computers at your public library.

every 5y ago

PBS, NPR and local affiliates of both have long been on the web. All you need to do is frequent and support them...

fortuna86 5y ago
Frontline continues to be the best documentary series available anywhere.

l00sed 5y ago

The Internet has replaced public broadcasting altogether through its own innovation. As I understand, "broadcast" originated from the "broad casting" of seeds. The Internet, on the other hand is bi-directional and interactive. It favors participation over consumption compared to television. The means of distributing information really transitions when adoption is ubiquitous. Literacy and the printing press, radios, televisions, to PCs and smartphones. The physical later of the network of distribution changes with each transition. These structures have inherent directionality and balance (or imbalance) in their nodes and connections that have some truly fascinating real-world results on the quality of how information travels, thrives or dies. The question of control and power also becomes an interesting network dynamic. The Internet is surprisingly more spatial than other media networks. Websites can now provide a connection to actual virtual worlds. Herein, I think, lies the biggest innovation. Now Facebook, LinkedIn, Reddit and others have a method to try and reproduce or reinvent a virtual public square or public house! Broadcast television requires a paid subscription to view online for NBC and ABC and CBS. There are a growing number of companies that I'm starting to see re-broadcast local broadcast TV on the web for free. It really ought to be illegal for these broadcast channels to charge for a digital copy of free broadcast television by all counts as far as I am concerned. I think that's completely backwards. I also think that social media has largely replaced the public square. It's a gross distortion because of the the skewed shapes and control of these networks. Twitter has literally silenced a president (which I didn't protest), but it is worrisome how these networks can exert so much power over information. To me, the real "PBS of the Internet" would have to exist as separate networks. I love the article's reference to libraries and other community centers, but I think it falls short in not suggesting something more along the lines of a community _network_ rather than another online service. Examples I would point to are the SNET in Cuba or the NYC Mesh Network. Here in Pittsburgh there is a growing PittMesh network. I think by creating something controlled and owned by the community that uses it, you decentralize information. This, I think, would encourage local news over conspiracy theories and perhaps provide a sheltering proxy to the the global web. What an exciting topic. VR feels like a whole other story haha If anyone would like to read some of my thoughts on these topics, I'd love for you to check some of my writing and leave a comment there. I love thinking about this stuff: https://l-o-o-s-e-d.net/public-internet https://l-o-o-s-e-d.net/public-internet

jackcosgrove 5y ago

This seems like fighting the last war. When I hear "PBS for the internet" I think publicly-funded content. Content on the internet doesn't have pride of place like it does on broadcast media. The internet is about platforms. "PBS for the internet" should be about creating, first, open standards for content distribution, promotion, and moderation. And then maybe implementing those standards. Content is basically free on the internet with the right platform. Trying to counter misinformation with good content is boiling the ocean. The better way to spread good content is to create standards and maybe a platform that incentivizes third parties to make good content.

fortuna86 5y ago
> The better way to spread good content is to create standards and maybe a platform that incentivizes third parties to make good content. In the article, it says exactly this. Their standards for transparency will be a model for other outlets.

shirro 5y ago

While PBS is a player (Spacetime, Eons, Deep Look etc) science/tech content is covered in much greater depth and with more expertise on Youtube than anything that was ever on traditional broadcast tv if you curate your subscriptions. Other public broadcasters like the BBC and Australian ABC have been into digital, particularly for news and kids content for ages. My kids stream our public broadcaster's kids only channel full of high quality content like Bluey from their devices and have for many years. Perhap the US needs to open up more to content from elsewhere though there are geo-blocking issues as a lot of public funded content is only free in the local market then sold to foreign markets. So what is on the public broadcaster for me is Disney or Netflix content for others.

Bud 5y ago

This seems like a great idea. However, I'd argue we do already have one institution that resembles the ideals of a PBS for the Internet: Wikipedia. Is any other institution not driven by a profit motive and also even a tenth as valuable to the public? I'd say not.

spfzero 5y ago

If you watch news on PBS, you see essentially the same stories, covered in the same way, as you see on any other network. Try comparing them as an experiment, it is enlightening.

ffggvv 5y ago

any and all of these become instantly captured by people with a political agenda and used as a propaganda source. which is exactly what they want.

jimmySixDOF 5y ago

A few posts here bring up the BBC and while it is an interesting case because they are so specifically funded by the public through a "TV License" [1], I think maybe a better comparison for this "Public Internet" should be to CSPAN. Using the CSPAN model, a public good commons of internet services would be carved out through an offset program in Wireless Spectrum auctions and other Telecom Service Provider Licenses and renewals [2]. Maybe if they ever get around to the Big Tech Tax that could help too. [1] You must have a TV Licence if you: watch or record programmes on a TV, computer or other device as they're broadcast. download or watch BBC programmes on iPlayer – live, catch up or on demand. £159 for a colour TV Licence and £53.50 for a black and white TV Licence https://www.gov.uk/tv-licence https://www.gov.uk/tv-licence [2] C-SPAN is a private, nonprofit organization funded by its cable and satellite affiliates, and it does not have advertisements on any of its networks, radio stations, or websites, nor does it solicit donations or pledges.

voidnullnil 5y ago

> Reality check: Allowing people to "tune" their own content preference dials could exacerbate filter bubbles. No thanks, I don't need someone to choose what I read. I am a "hacker", after all.