5 ms·

> Who should own media? Private people, or the state? I mean of course — who should own media.. we have precisely two choices, and no possibility to imagine an

by LeonB 3y ago

> Who should own media? Private people, or the state? I mean of course — who should own media.. we have precisely two choices, and no possibility to imagine anything else! What you’ve put forward is known as a false dichotomy. That is a situation where you present two options as if they are the only options. Oh wow — in your response Re government you have literally stated a dichotomy. Alright. I feel bad now. I have to let you know that there are more than two options (your preferred and a horrible alternative) in just about every situation in life. Please my friend - go out into the world and seek out the alternatives - they are infinite. This false dichotomy business is harmful to everyone around you. I agree that we should move beyond Marxist thought .. but I think we should be post Marxist not pre.

robertlagrant 3y ago
Unless you're paid by the word, it'd be better to skip all that and state your third option.
- vharuck 3y ago
  Media could be owned by the staff. That's what the Hell Gate website does. https://hellgatenyc.com/about-us https://hellgatenyc.com/about-us We could also restrict ownership by audience size. So any one person or non-media organization cannot own or control multiple media organizations if their total audience size is above X people. Audience size would be prorated for partial ownership or control (i.e., owning 1% of a newspaper that serves 100K people would count 1K people towards one's total). This is an off-the-cuff alternative, so assume the regulations would be written by actual lawyers who consider edge cases.
  - vxNsr 3y ago
    Everything you’ve proposed is the media being owned by the government with a single extra step.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    > Media could be owned by the staff Agree. That would be private people owning it, though.
    - digging 3y ago
      Well, the state is also people, so state-owned is also private people owning it then. Either that, or you could acknowledge the dramatic material differences between workers owning their own output and a rich individual not-worker owning their output.
      - robertlagrant 3y ago
        Er no, people don't own the state. People do own businesses.
      - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
        > so state-owned is also private people owning it This is wrong by definition. There is an actual "true" dichotomy between public ownership and non-public ownership. Two criteria: - "jointly exhaustive": the two subsets contain all possible scenarios - "mutually exclusive": the two subsets do not share any possible scenarios These criteria are met with the subsets of "the state" (meaning "public") and "private people" (meaning "non-public").
- LeonB 3y ago
  I point out your false dichotomy and you say what is the third option? I have been very clear there are more two more than three but many many options. To be clear - the two options you’ve presented are not actual options that anyone is arguing for. So presenting a single alternative would be to fall into an obvious trap. I ought not to have replied to disingenuous debate in the first place I get that. But perhaps someone else can - in future - spot a false dichotomy and say “oh - avoid this nonsense.”
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    If there's a third it doesn't mean there isn't a fourth. It just means you have an actual argument instead of just calling something a false dichotomy.
    - LeonB 3y ago
      You’ve presented two options and there are many more than two. I don’t have to list them to point at that at face value it is obvious that the two options you listed are not the only options. Can you genuinely imagine no other options? Really? I am giving a true dichotomy here, either: 1. You believe there are precisely two options 2. You do not believe there are precisely two options. Which is it?
      - robertlagrant 3y ago
        You don't have to list them to say that it's a not dichotomy, but you do if you want to demonstrate it's not a dichotomy. I don't know why you're spending 100s of words on the theory of dichotomy, instead of just providing a third option to show how it's not one. E.g. this could have gone: LeonB: what about businesses owned by many people? robertlagrant: ah, yes - what I was saying would put them in the "private ownership" bucket. Or whatever it is that you're actually thinking of, but are reluctant to say.
        LeonB 3y ago
        Is that 1 or 2?
- LeonB 3y ago
  > Unless you're paid by the word Ad hominem.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    It's snarky, but it's not ad hominem.
    - Retric 3y ago
      It’s not the main attack but you can have many fallacies in a single argument. Attacking the length of an argument rather than the thrust of the argument is an Ad hominem fallacy. It’s also snarky.
      - robertlagrant 3y ago
        There was no argument. Only a claim. And ad hominem is attacking the person, not the argument (e.g. "They might say that, but they're a Democrat.")
        Retric 3y ago
        Claims are arguments, just poorly supported ones. Ad hominem includes many types attacks on a person that aren’t about the person but how they presented the argument. Ie mocking how slow someone spoke, or in this case how many words they used: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
        robertlagrant 3y ago
        This is the crux of it, and lines up with what I was saying: > Nowadays, except within specialized philosophical usages, the usage of the term ad hominem signifies a straight attack at the character and ethos of a person, in an attempt to refute their argument.
        3y ago
- Retric 3y ago
  There is far more than just 3 options and suggesting any specific option is again falsely limiting the discussion. (1) Government ownership, (2) ownership by a single rich person, (3) ownership by a nonprofit, (4) ownership by the employees, (5) ownership by the readers… However, suggesting just one additional options focuses excessive attention to that specific option. Mentioning how much Twitter has changed going from a public company to a private one owned by a single wealthy person is only barely related to the underlying argument here. Namely, that you need to consider many options and their individual tradeoffs not just 2 bad options.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    (1) is state ownership; all the others are private. Those are the same two options I listed; you just mentioned some subcategories of private.
    - Retric 3y ago
      You didn’t set the categories, the original post was: “Imagine if — on top of that - we let the undeserving rich invest their wealth in things such as: - owning media” You can have private ownership without the owners automatically being rich. Further the owners could be rich without qualifying as undeserving rich by whatever metric the post’s author had in mind. That said, thanks for providing my point ;-)
      - robertlagrant 3y ago
        > You didn’t set the categories This whole conversation has been about my "false dichotomy" of state and private ownership. E.g. from LeonB: > I mean of course — who should own media.. we have precisely two choices, and no possibility to imagine anything else! What you’ve put forward is known as a false dichotomy. That is a situation where you present two options as if they are the only options.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
> Oh wow — in your response Re government you have literally stated a dichotomy. Alright. I feel bad now. I have to let you know that there are more than two options (your preferred and a horrible alternative) in just about every situation in life. Please my friend - go out into the world and seek out the alternatives - they are infinite. This false dichotomy business is harmful to everyone around you. > If lobbying the government is effective, it's either because the lobbying was correcting a wrong, or the government is allowing itself to be corrupted. This seems like "correcting a wrong" or "not correcting a wrong and therefore the government is allowing itself to be corrupted". The second part has an argument that effective lobbying which does not correct a wrong is necessarily government corruption. There seems to be a regular old dichotomy here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichotomy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichotomy). Not all dichotomies are false. But I also want to highlight a part of the comment: > Please my friend - go out into the world and seek out the alternatives - they are infinite. If these alternatives are so infinite, it should be easy to name one. That is something that is yet to be provided in this thread, seemingly despite your confidence that this dichotomy is false.

by LeonB 3y ago

robertlagrant 3y ago

Unless you're paid by the word, it'd be better to skip all that and state your third option.

vharuck 3y ago
Media could be owned by the staff. That's what the Hell Gate website does. https://hellgatenyc.com/about-us https://hellgatenyc.com/about-us We could also restrict ownership by audience size. So any one person or non-media organization cannot own or control multiple media organizations if their total audience size is above X people. Audience size would be prorated for partial ownership or control (i.e., owning 1% of a newspaper that serves 100K people would count 1K people towards one's total). This is an off-the-cuff alternative, so assume the regulations would be written by actual lawyers who consider edge cases.
- vxNsr 3y ago
  Everything you’ve proposed is the media being owned by the government with a single extra step.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  > Media could be owned by the staff Agree. That would be private people owning it, though.
  - digging 3y ago
    Well, the state is also people, so state-owned is also private people owning it then. Either that, or you could acknowledge the dramatic material differences between workers owning their own output and a rich individual not-worker owning their output.
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      Er no, people don't own the state. People do own businesses.
    - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
      > so state-owned is also private people owning it This is wrong by definition. There is an actual "true" dichotomy between public ownership and non-public ownership. Two criteria: - "jointly exhaustive": the two subsets contain all possible scenarios - "mutually exclusive": the two subsets do not share any possible scenarios These criteria are met with the subsets of "the state" (meaning "public") and "private people" (meaning "non-public").
LeonB 3y ago
I point out your false dichotomy and you say what is the third option? I have been very clear there are more two more than three but many many options. To be clear - the two options you’ve presented are not actual options that anyone is arguing for. So presenting a single alternative would be to fall into an obvious trap. I ought not to have replied to disingenuous debate in the first place I get that. But perhaps someone else can - in future - spot a false dichotomy and say “oh - avoid this nonsense.”
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  If there's a third it doesn't mean there isn't a fourth. It just means you have an actual argument instead of just calling something a false dichotomy.
  - LeonB 3y ago
    You’ve presented two options and there are many more than two. I don’t have to list them to point at that at face value it is obvious that the two options you listed are not the only options. Can you genuinely imagine no other options? Really? I am giving a true dichotomy here, either: 1. You believe there are precisely two options 2. You do not believe there are precisely two options. Which is it?
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      You don't have to list them to say that it's a not dichotomy, but you do if you want to demonstrate it's not a dichotomy. I don't know why you're spending 100s of words on the theory of dichotomy, instead of just providing a third option to show how it's not one. E.g. this could have gone: LeonB: what about businesses owned by many people? robertlagrant: ah, yes - what I was saying would put them in the "private ownership" bucket. Or whatever it is that you're actually thinking of, but are reluctant to say.
      - LeonB 3y ago
        Is that 1 or 2?
LeonB 3y ago
> Unless you're paid by the word Ad hominem.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  It's snarky, but it's not ad hominem.
  - Retric 3y ago
    It’s not the main attack but you can have many fallacies in a single argument. Attacking the length of an argument rather than the thrust of the argument is an Ad hominem fallacy. It’s also snarky.
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      There was no argument. Only a claim. And ad hominem is attacking the person, not the argument (e.g. "They might say that, but they're a Democrat.")
      - Retric 3y ago
        Claims are arguments, just poorly supported ones. Ad hominem includes many types attacks on a person that aren’t about the person but how they presented the argument. Ie mocking how slow someone spoke, or in this case how many words they used: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
        robertlagrant 3y ago
        This is the crux of it, and lines up with what I was saying: > Nowadays, except within specialized philosophical usages, the usage of the term ad hominem signifies a straight attack at the character and ethos of a person, in an attempt to refute their argument.
        3y ago
Retric 3y ago
There is far more than just 3 options and suggesting any specific option is again falsely limiting the discussion. (1) Government ownership, (2) ownership by a single rich person, (3) ownership by a nonprofit, (4) ownership by the employees, (5) ownership by the readers… However, suggesting just one additional options focuses excessive attention to that specific option. Mentioning how much Twitter has changed going from a public company to a private one owned by a single wealthy person is only barely related to the underlying argument here. Namely, that you need to consider many options and their individual tradeoffs not just 2 bad options.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  (1) is state ownership; all the others are private. Those are the same two options I listed; you just mentioned some subcategories of private.
  - Retric 3y ago
    You didn’t set the categories, the original post was: “Imagine if — on top of that - we let the undeserving rich invest their wealth in things such as: - owning media” You can have private ownership without the owners automatically being rich. Further the owners could be rich without qualifying as undeserving rich by whatever metric the post’s author had in mind. That said, thanks for providing my point ;-)
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      > You didn’t set the categories This whole conversation has been about my "false dichotomy" of state and private ownership. E.g. from LeonB: > I mean of course — who should own media.. we have precisely two choices, and no possibility to imagine anything else! What you’ve put forward is known as a false dichotomy. That is a situation where you present two options as if they are the only options.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago

> Oh wow — in your response Re government you have literally stated a dichotomy. Alright. I feel bad now. I have to let you know that there are more than two options (your preferred and a horrible alternative) in just about every situation in life. Please my friend - go out into the world and seek out the alternatives - they are infinite. This false dichotomy business is harmful to everyone around you. > If lobbying the government is effective, it's either because the lobbying was correcting a wrong, or the government is allowing itself to be corrupted. This seems like "correcting a wrong" or "not correcting a wrong and therefore the government is allowing itself to be corrupted". The second part has an argument that effective lobbying which does not correct a wrong is necessarily government corruption. There seems to be a regular old dichotomy here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichotomy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichotomy). Not all dichotomies are false. But I also want to highlight a part of the comment: > Please my friend - go out into the world and seek out the alternatives - they are infinite. If these alternatives are so infinite, it should be easy to name one. That is something that is yet to be provided in this thread, seemingly despite your confidence that this dichotomy is false.