4 ms·

I can't speak to other governments, but in the US there are two related programs with plenty of requirements, conditions, and stipulations: https://en.wikipedi

I can't speak to other governments, but in the US there are two related programs with plenty of requirements, conditions, and stipulations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paycheck_Protection_Program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paycheck_Protection_Program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CARES_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CARES_Act

Timon3 4y ago
Okay, but the funding for NPR must also have some stipulations, since a normal American can't just access it. There's probably something on the CBP grants page[1], I didn't look too deep. So if the whole point is that the money comes with stipulations, this seems to be fulfilled without a need for hidden content control through the state. Shouldn't we, as per Occams Razor, not assume that NPR really has creative control? https://cpb.org/grants https://cpb.org/grants
- infamouscow 4y ago
  I agree in principle, but this rationale isn't applied consistently. It's applied selectively and it's hypocrisy of the selective application that I'm trying to tease out. As a thought experiment let's imagine a parallel universe where we replace NPR with RT. Now imagine a Russian HN where two people are having a similar discussion about RT being Russian state-sponsored media. In that context would Occam's Razor apply? And if not, why? Pointing to Western fact-checkers isn't going to convince a Russian living in Russia any more than an American pointing to fact-checkers from RT is going to persuade an American. They've been indoctrinated by the public school system from an early age. In this imaginary universe Russia still doesn't have a 1A, but even without one, it doesn't follow that RT wouldn't be able to exert the same creative control as NPR. Any fact that could be seen to reflect poorly on the government is very easy to omit without compromising control and ensures no direct or indirect evidence of collusion. Another option would be to rely on a neutral third party. The problem with that is if the majority of institutions are already captured, a third party reporting the truth has to overcome an overwhelming counter-narrative of "fact-checkers" and imbeciles parroting rhetoric like "surely all of these people can't be wrong" and other appeals to authority. I'm not entirely convinced this is true, but suppose so. How would you go about proving or disproving the validity of this capture from within the system?

Timon3 4y ago

Okay, but the funding for NPR must also have some stipulations, since a normal American can't just access it. There's probably something on the CBP grants page[1], I didn't look too deep. So if the whole point is that the money comes with stipulations, this seems to be fulfilled without a need for hidden content control through the state. Shouldn't we, as per Occams Razor, not assume that NPR really has creative control? https://cpb.org/grants https://cpb.org/grants

infamouscow 4y ago
I agree in principle, but this rationale isn't applied consistently. It's applied selectively and it's hypocrisy of the selective application that I'm trying to tease out. As a thought experiment let's imagine a parallel universe where we replace NPR with RT. Now imagine a Russian HN where two people are having a similar discussion about RT being Russian state-sponsored media. In that context would Occam's Razor apply? And if not, why? Pointing to Western fact-checkers isn't going to convince a Russian living in Russia any more than an American pointing to fact-checkers from RT is going to persuade an American. They've been indoctrinated by the public school system from an early age. In this imaginary universe Russia still doesn't have a 1A, but even without one, it doesn't follow that RT wouldn't be able to exert the same creative control as NPR. Any fact that could be seen to reflect poorly on the government is very easy to omit without compromising control and ensures no direct or indirect evidence of collusion. Another option would be to rely on a neutral third party. The problem with that is if the majority of institutions are already captured, a third party reporting the truth has to overcome an overwhelming counter-narrative of "fact-checkers" and imbeciles parroting rhetoric like "surely all of these people can't be wrong" and other appeals to authority. I'm not entirely convinced this is true, but suppose so. How would you go about proving or disproving the validity of this capture from within the system?