CDZ An idea regarding the American media

[Shelzin]

You may be right but it seems like splitting hairs to me. I think the point I'm trying to make is that they should be able to conduct their business however they want, including refusing or at least minimizing their service to others.

Cake baker can say he's not going to make his fancy cakes for gay customers. Facebook can say they're not going to give the same privileges to certain users. It's up to them as far as I am concerned.

Not really... Because you can't refuse service based on race or sexuality as I understand it. I don't see that as splitting hairs. Businesses CAN'T conduct themselves however they want. There are rights guaranteed to every citizen. Everybody, including businesses, have to respect those rights.

Personally, I wish conservatives would just create their own social media platform and go to that. They bitch and moan about how mean Facebook and Twitter are. Then they boycott them. Then they come back to them and bitch and moan some more. Just go do your own thing and run it however the hell you want. If they want to remove all liberals or anyone who doesn't worship Trump, fine. Go for it and have fun.

I do not believe it's morally or legally correct to allow a business to refuse service based on things that have nothing to do with said service.

Unless of course you are a publisher... I do not believe any newspaper should be required to print whatever story I send them. Publishers can be sued for slander or a number of other things.

Platforms can't... Their service is only the venue in which communication takes place. They cannot be sued. Only the people who post/interact on it. Platforms are the cake.

 

[XponentialChaos]

You're making an argument that the size of the business changes this.

Do you think small and large businesses should get different treatment? Because I don't agree.

they always have

Think Standard Oil in 1911

It was broken up because it was ruled a detriment to the nation

What they were broken up for has nothing to do with this.

 

[Shelzin]

a better comparison is a wise cafe owner denying service to black people when there are no other choices for food.

FaceBook is a monopoly and so is Twitter

I disagree... I don't think it's a better comparison.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Not really... Because you can't refuse service based on race or sexuality as I understand it. I don't see that as splitting hairs. Businesses CAN'T conduct themselves however they want. There are rights guaranteed to every citizen. Everybody, including businesses, have to respect those rights.

Right, I meant within the confines of the law including discrimination classes. Race and sexuality are protected classes. Political leanings are not a protected class.

I do not believe it's morally or legally correct to allow a business to refuse service based on things that have nothing to do with said service.

Well it's legally acceptable. Whether it's moral or not is subjective. Regardless, it should be up to them on how to conduct themselves within the confines of the law.

If a donut shop opens up and says "We don't serve police officers", that's perfectly allowed. Stupid, but allowed. I support their right to operate their business in a manner that is stupid if that's how they wish to do so.

If a customer has a problem with that policy, then it's up to them if they choose to take their business elsewhere.

 

[Mac-7]

What they were broken up for has nothing to do with this.

its the same principle

no difference at all

 

[Mac-7]

I disagree... I don't think it's a better comparison.

i just noticed a typo

I meant the write "a white cafe owner"

 

[XponentialChaos]

I do not believe it's morally or legally correct to allow a business to refuse service based on things that have nothing to do with said service.

Another note on this. I largely agree on it, mostly.

In general, I think it's dumb to conduct a business in a way that refuses service to certain customers. However it's not up to me, it's up to them. And I think they should have that right to do what they want within the confines of the law.

But just as a silly example to play devil's advocate, suppose that you own a coffee shop and a bunch of hooded KKK members decide to hang out there all day. They're good paying customers, they treat the staff really nicely. But as you can imagine, this could have some very negative impacts on your business.

You, as a business owner, might be inclined to refuse service to them. Kind of an extreme example that's very unlikely, but you get my point. I think you, as the business owner, should have the right to run your business as you see fit, including refusing services to certain customers, so long as your policies follow the law.

 

[XponentialChaos]

What they were broken up for has nothing to do with this.

its the same principle

no difference at all

Ok well I disagree with that.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

You may be right but it seems like splitting hairs to me. I think the point I'm trying to make is that they should be able to conduct their business however they want, including refusing or at least minimizing their service to others.

Cake baker can say he's not going to make his fancy cakes for gay customers. Facebook can say they're not going to give the same privileges to certain users. It's up to them as far as I am concerned.

Not really... Because you can't refuse service based on race or sexuality as I understand it. I don't see that as splitting hairs. Businesses CAN'T conduct themselves however they want. There are rights guaranteed to every citizen. Everybody, including businesses, have to respect those rights.

Personally, I wish conservatives would just create their own social media platform and go to that. They bitch and moan about how mean Facebook and Twitter are. Then they boycott them. Then they come back to them and bitch and moan some more. Just go do your own thing and run it however the hell you want. If they want to remove all liberals or anyone who doesn't worship Trump, fine. Go for it and have fun.

I do not believe it's morally or legally correct to allow a business to refuse service based on things that have nothing to do with said service.

Unless of course you are a publisher... I do not believe any newspaper should be required to print whatever story I send them. Publishers can be sued for slander or a number of other things.

Platforms can't... Their service is only the venue in which communication takes place. They cannot be sued. Only the people who post/interact on it. Platforms are the cake.

The hair I would split is this: If a baker has a cake behind the counter and a gay couple cones in and asks to buy it, then the shop owner should not refuse in accordance with equal access laws. If the same couple comes in and wants the baker to create a cake, the baker should be able to refuse, ESPECIALLY if creating it wold force them to endorse something that goes against their conscience.

 

[Dadoalex]

This 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.

I will try to keep this as nonpartisan as possible.

Sorry.
The "lie" cat was let out of the bag by Fox news starting in the mid 1990s.
The Republican party had been lying to their constituents for decades.
They had their "whisper lies" they'd been telling about African Americans, Guns, tobacco, taxes and other "issues."
"Whisper lies" are those lies you only tell in private because you'd be embarrassed to say those things in public.
But, with Fox establishing the template and the internet giving a platform to anyone with the ability to start a website lying, especially among those who ID as "conservative" became the rule of the day.
We're not talking about mistakes, opinion pieces, or even bad journalism. This is planned lying by large media entities with the clear intent of impacting the electorate. AND
ALMOST ALL OF THE LYING WAS COMING FROM AND DIRECTED AT PEOPLE WHO ID AS "CONSERVATIVE."

Unfortunately there is no governmental action that can address this since it is purely a 1st amendment issue.
Removal of the exemptions for content platforms won't work because the big providers will simply strictly enforce their ToS and other will simply move their ops offshore. You know, like PARLER did.
The only solution is market based and WE have to do it.
I don't go to NEWSMAX, OANN and similar sites. I know they're lying to me.
When I go to a site I do a quick perusal of their headlines and ads If the landing page has one ad for "survival gear," or the like I leave.
When I read or view a story I compare what I'm being told with what I already know. NOT what I think, but what I know. If there's a conflict I start digging deeper. I look for supporting information and conflicting information from various sources. Someone's wrong. If it's me I need to change my thought processes. If it's them then I evaluate whether it is an honest mistake or a deliberate attempt at misleading. If deliberate, the site(s) fall from my personal source list.

Thus you will never see me link a Fox, Newsmax, Breitbart, or similar sites unless it is a specific attempt to show their lies.

The real problem is those who are completely brainwashed. How do you get them to change the channel, as it were?

 

[sartre play]

how we ever got to this low point, years spent arguing over a cake. something about Rome burning while someone else fiddles.

 

[sartre play]

To the point of the post All MEDIA abuses the truth, by having guests on and allowing them to out right lie. or by stretching the truth to the breaking point. No ONE IS GOING TO SPEND HOURS WATCHING NEWS that just dispenses information. To many people enjoy being all riled up, to the point of wanting to get a gun & do harm to someone they don't even know because they have different reality's. How did we get so hate filled?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

This 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.

I will try to keep this as nonpartisan as possible.

Sorry.
The "lie" cat was let out of the bag by Fox news starting in the mid 1990s.
The Republican party had been lying to their constituents for decades.
They had their "whisper lies" they'd been telling about African Americans, Guns, tobacco, taxes and other "issues."
"Whisper lies" are those lies you only tell in private because you'd be embarrassed to say those things in public.
But, with Fox establishing the template and the internet giving a platform to anyone with the ability to start a website lying, especially among those who ID as "conservative" became the rule of the day.
We're not talking about mistakes, opinion pieces, or even bad journalism. This is planned lying by large media entities with the clear intent of impacting the electorate. AND
ALMOST ALL OF THE LYING WAS COMING FROM AND DIRECTED AT PEOPLE WHO ID AS "CONSERVATIVE."

Unfortunately there is no governmental action that can address this since it is purely a 1st amendment issue.
Removal of the exemptions for content platforms won't work because the big providers will simply strictly enforce their ToS and other will simply move their ops offshore. You know, like PARLER did.
The only solution is market based and WE have to do it.
I don't go to NEWSMAX, OANN and similar sites. I know they're lying to me.
When I go to a site I do a quick perusal of their headlines and ads If the landing page has one ad for "survival gear," or the like I leave.
When I read or view a story I compare what I'm being told with what I already know. NOT what I think, but what I know. If there's a conflict I start digging deeper. I look for supporting information and conflicting information from various sources. Someone's wrong. If it's me I need to change my thought processes. If it's them then I evaluate whether it is an honest mistake or a deliberate attempt at misleading. If deliberate, the site(s) fall from my personal source list.

Thus you will never see me link a Fox, Newsmax, Breitbart, or similar sites unless it is a specific attempt to show their lies.

The real problem is those who are completely brainwashed. How do you get them to change the channel, as it were?

if this utterly one-sided invective is non-partisan, I'd hate to see what you might come up with if you decided to go full-on partisan.

 

[Shelzin]

Not really... Because you can't refuse service based on race or sexuality as I understand it. I don't see that as splitting hairs. Businesses CAN'T conduct themselves however they want. There are rights guaranteed to every citizen. Everybody, including businesses, have to respect those rights.

Right, I meant within the confines of the law including discrimination classes. Race and sexuality are protected classes. Political leanings are not a protected class.

Freedom of speech is. Now that's against the Government, I know. However if it's a platform, it should be just as guaranteed considering the special privileges platforms get. Platforms for all rights and privileges are the same as public spaces. As such the same rules should apply.

If they give up that public space, and are publishers... Sure... It's a private property, you choose what is or isn't said... Works for me.

But they are NOT platforms then. And as such should not be treated as if they are.

Well it's legally acceptable. Whether it's moral or not is subjective. Regardless, it should be up to them on how to conduct themselves within the confines of the law.

I'm not so sure on that.

If a donut shop opens up and says "We don't serve police officers", that's perfectly allowed. Stupid, but allowed. I support their right to operate their business in a manner that is stupid if that's how they wish to do so.

I looked it up before posting again... You can actually do this. How disheartening. There really are "protected classes" of people. Of course, a simple CITY rule could change what a protected class is.

I fucking HATE identity politics. Hate makes people stupid. I'm not immune. I think I'm done on this particular subject for now.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Not really... Because you can't refuse service based on race or sexuality as I understand it. I don't see that as splitting hairs. Businesses CAN'T conduct themselves however they want. There are rights guaranteed to every citizen. Everybody, including businesses, have to respect those rights.

Right, I meant within the confines of the law including discrimination classes. Race and sexuality are protected classes. Political leanings are not a protected class.

Freedom of speech is. Now that's against the Government, I know. However if it's a platform, it should be just as guaranteed considering the special privileges platforms get. Platforms for all rights and privileges are the same as public spaces. As such the same rules should apply.

If they give up that public space, and are publishers... Sure... It's a private property, you choose what is or isn't said... Works for me.

But they are NOT platforms then. And as such should not be treated as if they are.

Well it's legally acceptable. Whether it's moral or not is subjective. Regardless, it should be up to them on how to conduct themselves within the confines of the law.

I'm not so sure on that.

If a donut shop opens up and says "We don't serve police officers", that's perfectly allowed. Stupid, but allowed. I support their right to operate their business in a manner that is stupid if that's how they wish to do so.

I looked it up before posting again... You can actually do this. How disheartening. There really are "protected classes" of people. Of course, a simple CITY rule could change what a protected class is.

I fucking HATE identity politics. Hate makes people stupid. I'm not immune. I think I'm done on this particular subject for now.

I’ll leave the platform thing for the courts to decide. As far as I know, they have not been in violation of any legal infractions.

Yea I’m pretty sure the police thing actually happened. I remember reading something like that. I agree that it’s stupid, but still legally allowed.

Nice talking to you as always.

 

[Mac1958]

The real problem is those who are completely brainwashed. How do you get them to change the channel, as it were?

The short answer is, "I have no freaking idea".

We've never seen anything like this: A large, entirely separate, fully-functioning, self-contained, closed circuit informational ecosystem. The 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. Otherwise, it would be up to the players themselves to change their ways and become responsible. Do you see that happening? I don't. Fantasy and conspiracy are too lucrative.

Uncharted territory. I don't know. But I think this situation is pretty close to becoming an existential threat.

 

[ESay]

We have self regulation and its not much use. Making it easier to sue the rogues would help, it is far too expensive.

The British Press still has Page 3 girls in 2020. I'm not sure anyone in the UK is in the position of lecturing anyone on journalistic integrity.

I dont buy that paper but I am pretty sure they stopped the tits pix a few years back. Of course that doesnt invalidate your point about the standards of the UK press.

I think that certain tricks of some English newspapers to get more buyers of their 'production' dont show the overall standard of the UK press.

 

[Dadoalex]

The real problem is those who are completely brainwashed. How do you get them to change the channel, as it were?

The short answer is, "I have no freaking idea".

We've never seen anything like this: A large, entirely separate, fully-functioning, self-contained, closed circuit informational ecosystem. The 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. Otherwise, it would be up to the players themselves to change their ways and become responsible. Do you see that happening? I don't. Fantasy and conspiracy are too lucrative.

Uncharted territory. I don't know. But I think this situation is pretty close to becoming an existential threat.

The MSM needs to stop giving air to the..."nuts."
2015 I'm ready to throw my tv out a window watching Trump interviewed on MSNBC.
If they had treated him like the ignorant racist he is he'd have disappeared back then.
But, by treating him and his "truths" as reasonable political discussions they gave him the air he needed to become legitimate.

Yes, put them on the air but call them out, on air, live when they lie or make racist and misogynistic statements and force them to defend those statements or admit the lie.
With that they will disappear into the dark corners of OANN, NEWSMAX, and, of course, 4CHAN.

 

[Mac-7]

If a donut shop opens up and says "We don't serve police officers", that's perfectly allowed. Stupid, but allowed.

there are other donut shops for the cops to go to

Hopefully the other shops will get a better response time when some drugged out biden voter needs money for a fix

But there are no other comparable FaceBoook or Twitter and those monopolies should not be allowed to engage in partisan politics

 

[Dogmaphobe]

The real problem is those who are completely brainwashed. How do you get them to change the channel, as it were?

The short answer is, "I have no freaking idea".

We've never seen anything like this: A large, entirely separate, fully-functioning, self-contained, closed circuit informational ecosystem. The 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. Otherwise, it would be up to the players themselves to change their ways and become responsible. Do you see that happening? I don't. Fantasy and conspiracy are too lucrative.

Uncharted territory. I don't know. But I think this situation is pretty close to becoming an existential threat.

Complete fascism just can't come fast enough for you, can it?

Your thread is a ruse, your premise a lie. Your rhetoric is specious and your aims are devious and underhanded.

You are not interested in addressing the obvious bias in our mainstream media. You are only interested in establishing that bias as the only one allowed. This is an utterly fascist political stance, and your desire for a new ministry of truth runs completely contrary to everything for which this country stands.

1984 was written as a cautionary tale. You seem to be using it as an operating manual.