3 ms·

I don't mind these fees. It's better than collecting the same in taxes as it keeps the public broadcaster independent from political oversight, at least to a ce

I don't mind these fees. It's better than collecting the same in taxes as it keeps the public broadcaster independent from political oversight, at least to a certain degree.

LargoLasskhyfv 4y ago
I do, because it is all BS. It should all be pay per view, via smartcards, or similar. And then more and more people would think twice if it's really worth it, to them. While the producers can GTFO, and do something meaningful with their UBI, or whatever :-) Case in point, I recently watched a playlist on YT about some topic, while doing stuff concurrently. About two dozen documentaries, all in all. It almost doesn't matter who is producing them, they all resample and mix the same stuff, over and over again, in variations of the same theme. Even carrying over the same mistranslations and mispronounciations, thereby communicating wrongness. But should be correct, because it was on TV, they should know what they do, how dare you to question them!? Monkey see, Monkey do! Boo! There rarely is anything original. This went on for maybe 3 to 4 hours, then I canceled it and put some music on. Much better. And don't even get me started about the so called 'independence' of those arrogant mouthpieces and sockpuppets.
- distances 4y ago
  Pay per view would add exactly the kind of incentives that would be disastrous. It's important that public broadcasters are (comparatively) free from commercial and political pressures, that's the only way to execute the mission they have been created for.
  - LargoLasskhyfv 4y ago
    Which is mostly (dis|mis)information and propaganda. Go home. Edited for insertion of mostly.
    - distances 4y ago
      It seems we have very different views of the world so let's just agree to disagree here.
account42 4y ago
> It's better than collecting the same in taxes No, it's much worse than taxes. Taxes are (at least in theory) collected equitably. TV/radio feeds are collected equally from everyone (except a couple of exceptions). If you have a low income you still pay the full fees. If you fall into one of the exceptions it is up to you to convince the fee collectors of that. Don't do that in time and you have to pay the fee anyway. Not to mention having a second set of taxes with second set of collectors is just wasteful. And don't tell me that this is about the TV/radio stations being independent of the government - the government is the one that decides on this fee so that changes nothing about the TV/radio stations incentives to not rock the boat. And not to mention that a lot of these fees are not even used for providing "unbiased" news (which is what is used to justify them) but are funneled into private companies via sports licensing and other questionable entertainment.

I don't mind these fees. It's better than collecting the same in taxes as it keeps the public broadcaster independent from political oversight, at least to a certain degree.

LargoLasskhyfv 4y ago

I do, because it is all BS. It should all be pay per view, via smartcards, or similar. And then more and more people would think twice if it's really worth it, to them. While the producers can GTFO, and do something meaningful with their UBI, or whatever :-) Case in point, I recently watched a playlist on YT about some topic, while doing stuff concurrently. About two dozen documentaries, all in all. It almost doesn't matter who is producing them, they all resample and mix the same stuff, over and over again, in variations of the same theme. Even carrying over the same mistranslations and mispronounciations, thereby communicating wrongness. But should be correct, because it was on TV, they should know what they do, how dare you to question them!? Monkey see, Monkey do! Boo! There rarely is anything original. This went on for maybe 3 to 4 hours, then I canceled it and put some music on. Much better. And don't even get me started about the so called 'independence' of those arrogant mouthpieces and sockpuppets.

distances 4y ago
Pay per view would add exactly the kind of incentives that would be disastrous. It's important that public broadcasters are (comparatively) free from commercial and political pressures, that's the only way to execute the mission they have been created for.
- LargoLasskhyfv 4y ago
  Which is mostly (dis|mis)information and propaganda. Go home. Edited for insertion of mostly.
  - distances 4y ago
    It seems we have very different views of the world so let's just agree to disagree here.

account42 4y ago

> It's better than collecting the same in taxes No, it's much worse than taxes. Taxes are (at least in theory) collected equitably. TV/radio feeds are collected equally from everyone (except a couple of exceptions). If you have a low income you still pay the full fees. If you fall into one of the exceptions it is up to you to convince the fee collectors of that. Don't do that in time and you have to pay the fee anyway. Not to mention having a second set of taxes with second set of collectors is just wasteful. And don't tell me that this is about the TV/radio stations being independent of the government - the government is the one that decides on this fee so that changes nothing about the TV/radio stations incentives to not rock the boat. And not to mention that a lot of these fees are not even used for providing "unbiased" news (which is what is used to justify them) but are funneled into private companies via sports licensing and other questionable entertainment.