Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Hey, if you find out how to delete your FB account, please relay. I found it to be a non-option, and pretty sure it's still the same.
No, the OP says in the post you quoted it would be a "self-regulatory body" and points out several times in the thread that he wants no government involvement.Cliff Notes Version: The OP proposes that the government regulate what the media can publish, which is classic CENSORSHIP.
No thank you. If an individual doesn't trust a media source, he is free to not read, watch or listen to it.
Good gawd, you people.
What complaints?
That they can't own the vagina of every woman?
That they can't legally murder any LGBTQ? person they may meet in the street?
That murdering Black men is not treated like a parking ticket?
That losing an election means you don't get to hold that office?
EXACTLY what grievances am I to give credence to?
Within the next few years, give or take a couple, the global AI race will expand significantly and continue to enter various markets. Developers will soon be offering up "fact checkers" and possibly make their offers to mainstream news outlets. I would love to see their faces when asked if they'd like to have a true fact checker on a daily basis-during their programs! hahaThis could be a pretty interesting conversation if we can stay calm and focused.
Point 1 - We have a serious and growing problem in this country with a media (across the ideological spectrum) that has (deservedly, in my opinion) lost the trust of the American people. We've all seen and contributed to threads that discuss and catalogue examples of gross bias from both ends of our media.
Point 2 - It's not a stretch to imagine a body that creates, maintains and enforces standards of journalistic integrity and accuracy, in such a way as providing guidance to consumers and provides them with more faith that what they are consuming is, indeed, accurate. Before we devolve and divide much further. I don't know about you, but I don't see a bottom to this yet. BUT I'm not fond of the idea of such a body being government-based. For many reasons.
Point 3 - There are two bodies that provide such services in the financial services industry. The first is the SEC (Securities & Exchange Commission) which is an agency of the US Federal Government. But the second one is FINRA (Financial Industry Regulatory Authority) that is a private corporation that also policies the industry - but it is the industry's self-regulatory body.
Idea - Could such an industry self-regulatory body work with the press? Theoretically it could (a) maintain and enforce standards of journalistic integrity and accuracy, and (b) provide consumers with some kind of roadmap so that they can easily discern fact from opinion. As in, this is an actual news resource, that is an opinion resource.
Look, I'm not going for perfection here. I can already think of some issues with this. I'm looking for (a) some improvement and (b) the hope that such a system would gradually raise standards up to a point at which it was barely needed. THAT would be the goal.
Thoughts? And by the way, if you can think of a problem, perhaps you could also provide a possible solution to discuss. We used to do that, here, in America.
Anyone or any machine calling themselves a 'Fact Checker' is a direct insult to intelligent people. We all have access to the same information, relying on any 'fact checker' is lazy, ignorant and foolish.Within the next few years, give or take a couple, the global AI race will expand significantly and continue to enter various markets. Developers will soon be offering up "fact checkers" and possibly make their offers to mainstream news outlets. I would love to see their faces when asked if they'd like to have a true fact checker on a daily basis-during their programs! haha
Of course AI "fact checking" will only be as good as the clean learning process is, and even with great effort to keep out "trash info" quite the challenge. One thing about machines is they don't have the "human loyalty factor to a cause" going on, unless of course its been programmed by a corrupt programmer. Self-taught machines can wind up with subversive, biased information that's harder to catch. It's a real make it or break it scenario with being 100% sure its clean learning. From what I've read, that's the trickiest part and takes the longest time. The public will decide if it's a hit or miss, and some outlets won't even sign on for their own reasons. It will be an interesting development to say the least.
I do not condone any sign of laziness...ignorance is a temporary condition and many recover, and foolish can be fun within limits. I am pretty sure they won't be called fact checkers lol I was just using that expressionAnyone or any machine calling themselves a 'Fact Checker' is a direct insult to intelligent people. We all have access to the same information, relying on any 'fact checker' is lazy, ignorant and foolish.Within the next few years, give or take a couple, the global AI race will expand significantly and continue to enter various markets. Developers will soon be offering up "fact checkers" and possibly make their offers to mainstream news outlets. I would love to see their faces when asked if they'd like to have a true fact checker on a daily basis-during their programs! haha
Of course AI "fact checking" will only be as good as the clean learning process is, and even with great effort to keep out "trash info" quite the challenge. One thing about machines is they don't have the "human loyalty factor to a cause" going on, unless of course its been programmed by a corrupt programmer. Self-taught machines can wind up with subversive, biased information that's harder to catch. It's a real make it or break it scenario with being 100% sure its clean learning. From what I've read, that's the trickiest part and takes the longest time. The public will decide if it's a hit or miss, and some outlets won't even sign on for their own reasons. It will be an interesting development to say the least.
I wasn't projecting that on you. I was just commenting on fact checkers which, IMO, are a bunch of arrogant, bastards.I do not condone any sign of laziness...ignorance is a temporary condition and many recover, and foolish can be fun within limits. I am pretty sure they won't be called fact checkers lol I was just using that expression
Yeah, that's working out great.No, the OP says in the post you quoted it would be a "self-regulatory body" and points out several times in the thread that he wants no government involvement.Cliff Notes Version: The OP proposes that the government regulate what the media can publish, which is classic CENSORSHIP.
No thank you. If an individual doesn't trust a media source, he is free to not read, watch or listen to it.
Good gawd, you people.
You don't need to appoint a body to self-regulate.
You are not talking about people choosing to self-regulate ... You are discussing creating/appointing a body to regulate others.
The media has the ability to self-regulate ... It's called editors or even producers, and they aren't worth a shit ...
.
Neither end wants unity. They want to "beat" the other.What complaints?
That they can't own the vagina of every woman?
That they can't legally murder any LGBTQ? person they may meet in the street?
That murdering Black men is not treated like a parking ticket?
That losing an election means you don't get to hold that office?
EXACTLY what grievances am I to give credence to?
In the article I linked to, and the quote.
Mac1958 - this is why I don't think Democrats will seek unity. They don't want it.
Yeah, that's working out great.No, the OP says in the post you quoted it would be a "self-regulatory body" and points out several times in the thread that he wants no government involvement.Cliff Notes Version: The OP proposes that the government regulate what the media can publish, which is classic CENSORSHIP.
No thank you. If an individual doesn't trust a media source, he is free to not read, watch or listen to it.
Good gawd, you people.
You don't need to appoint a body to self-regulate.
You are not talking about people choosing to self-regulate ... You are discussing creating/appointing a body to regulate others.
The media has the ability to self-regulate ... It's called editors or even producers, and they aren't worth a shit ...
.
You're making assumptions about what such a body would be able to do. I never offered specifics because it's just a germ of an idea.Yeah, that's working out great.No, the OP says in the post you quoted it would be a "self-regulatory body" and points out several times in the thread that he wants no government involvement.Cliff Notes Version: The OP proposes that the government regulate what the media can publish, which is classic CENSORSHIP.
No thank you. If an individual doesn't trust a media source, he is free to not read, watch or listen to it.
Good gawd, you people.
You don't need to appoint a body to self-regulate.
You are not talking about people choosing to self-regulate ... You are discussing creating/appointing a body to regulate others.
The media has the ability to self-regulate ... It's called editors or even producers, and they aren't worth a shit ...
.
Well, personally, I think they suck ... So I don't support the ones that suck so bad.
I wouldn't go to a restaurant that burned the food all night.
I wouldn't hire a house painter that only uses pink paint.
I'm sorry you want to try and fix or punish the people, or networks, that you think are lying to you on purpose, and for political reasons.
I have no use for them, and no obligation to correct their corrupt way of doing business.
Now if you want to comment on how your 'self-regulating body' suggestion sucks ...
Because anyone can, is supposed to self-regulate anyway ...
And you want to turn self-regulation into external oversight, for the sake of silencing opposing views ...
Well, I don't think you know what Freedom of the Press means ...
.
You're making assumptions about what such a body would be able to do. I never offered specifics because it's just a germ of an idea.
There was a time in America that an idea could be tossed out, and then collaboration and innovation would form it into something new.
Obviously, we're no longer capable of that in America. But then, I wasn't expecting miracles here.
Okay, got it.You're making assumptions about what such a body would be able to do. I never offered specifics because it's just a germ of an idea.
There was a time in America that an idea could be tossed out, and then collaboration and innovation would form it into something new.
Obviously, we're no longer capable of that in America. But then, I wasn't expecting miracles here.
I didn't make assumptions about anything.
I corrected your silly idea that a regulatory body would be required to self-regulate ...
Collaboration is a tool for finding truth ...
Innovation can improve a corrupt product that is knowingly corrupt in manufacture.
You aren't expecting a miracle as much as you are desiring a regulated compliance to your idiocy.
Oh ... America is capable, and doing its best to get exactly where you want it.
.
The company was broken up by the Roosevelt AdministrationThe logic says that you're making a comparison to a company that was broken up by the Supreme Court and encouraged by the President at the time.
I believe in giving liberals their dueHaha, sorry about the bristling. I sincerely hope that you are able to find a competitor that you are happy with.
IAW, Mac1958 sitting in his star chamber telling the rest of us what to thinkThe idea that I offered in the OP tries to address it by creating a body that might (theoretically) return and enforce standards and keep reality & fiction/conspiracy separated.
Not to mention the fact that it is the corrupt mainstream media that is obviously the problem, here, yet he's only wanting to go after anything that ISN'T the mainstream media. Rather that reforming the mainstream media, he simply wants to entrench it even further by creating a body that calls anything a lie that does not conform to the mainstream narrative.No, the OP says in the post you quoted it would be a "self-regulatory body" and points out several times in the thread that he wants no government involvement.Cliff Notes Version: The OP proposes that the government regulate what the media can publish, which is classic CENSORSHIP.
No thank you. If an individual doesn't trust a media source, he is free to not read, watch or listen to it.
Good gawd, you people.
You don't need to appoint a body to self-regulate.
You are not talking about people choosing to self-regulate ... You are discussing creating/appointing a body to regulate others.
The media has the ability to self-regulate ... It's called editors or even producers, and they aren't worth a shit ...
.
Idea - Could such an industry self-regulatory body work with the press? Theoretically it could (a) maintain and enforce standards of journalistic integrity and accuracy, and (b) provide consumers with some kind of roadmap so that they can easily discern fact from opinion. As in, this is an actual news resource, that is an opinion resource.
Look, I'm not going for perfection here. I can already think of some issues with this. I'm looking for (a) some improvement and (b) the hope that such a system would gradually raise standards up to a point at which it was barely needed. THAT would be the goal.
Thoughts? And by the way, if you can think of a problem, perhaps you could also provide a possible solution to discuss. We used to do that, here, in America.
Not to mention the fact that it is the corrupt mainstream media that is obviously the problem, here, yet he's only wanting to go after anything that ISN'T the mainstream media. Rather that reforming the mainstream media, he simply wants to entrench it even further by creating a body that calls anything a lie that does not conform to the mainstream narrative.
It is very Orwellian.
