Trump to launch TRUTH social network (3 Viewers)

[superchuck500]

 

[el caliente]

I agree with you, but Musk and his acolytes don't want that. They want an unregulated internet with laws preventing social media sites of content moderation.

Also, tv and radio aren't being regulated effectively either. Lies and conspiracy theories and spread just as easily in Fox and other right wing networks and radio and are pushed by those entities to feed their fervent following and maximize profit. So I don't know that that's what we need either.

I agreed the FCC has been asleep at the wheel for quite a while (long before Trump even considered a political career). Clearer lines need to drawn otherwise you will keep getting more Info Wars, and OANs (I’m not sure if the Left has a counter to those two, I honestly don’t pay enough attention).

But with Twitter, as previously mentioned, folks get their news from that platform and Facebook. Folks with Blue Checkmarks are “genuine” and seen for adding important valuable content to the site. We all know these Blue Check mark folks hold some odd sense of self importance, and folks listen to them. They can spread lies quicker and louder than a local politician or local news outlet. It’s crazy how unchecked they can be.

If you are going to start regulating politicians, then you might want to regulate what the blue check mark’s folks are sharing. It’s equally as powerful and dangerous.

 

[MT15]

I agree with you that he has power that is beyond comprehension. I am amazed by how he is able to play so freely with that power when it comes to manipulating securities (stocks, crypto, etc.), but I suppose that security manipulation has been going on longer than the markets themselves.

I do like his approach to Twitter. If you believe people aren’t getting a fair shake then buy a significant % of the company, and have them bend to your will. For the record I believe all social media should be monitored by the FCC. There is a tremendous amount of power on those platforms that they should be regulated like any Fox, NBC, or major platform.

How do you suppose that Fox News is regulated by the FCC? Or is that what you meant?

 

[MT15]

I’m trying to understand your POV, el. The FCC only regulates broadcast media, IIRC. So no regulation at all of OAN, Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, etc. And the Fairness Doctrine was struck down decades ago.

Are you proposing that some sort of government agency fact-check social media? How can we make that work without violating the 1st Amendment?

 

[el caliente]

How do you suppose that Fox News is regulated by the FCC? Or is that what you meant?

I don’t believe that the FCC regulates the media nearly enough. I believe all the FCC has done has required Fox to disclose that it is an entertainment channel (not news) and that’s about it.

I’m trying to understand your POV, el. The FCC only regulates broadcast media, IIRC. So no regulation at all of OAN, Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, etc. And the Fairness Doctrine was struck down decades ago.

Are you proposing that some sort of government agency fact-check social media? How can we make that work without violating the 1st Amendment?

The FCC regulates interstate/international communications. No matter if the communication comes via print, tv, radio. Social Media should fall under that umbrella as well. I mean, if it doesn’t I am open to finding a new bucket to placing it in.

The end game is just cleaning things up, and preventing another Jan. 6th, Pizza Gate, or riots in Minnesota. The platforms can either better regulate themselves, or have the government step in and put the clamps down on them. The reason I doubt this happens is because these platforms donate heavily to both sides of the aisle so that regulations aren’t passed down (at least not too heavy handed).

Are We Entering a New Era of Social Media Regulation?

The violence at the U.S. Capitol — and the ensuing actions taken by social media platforms — suggest that we may be at a turning point as far as how business leaders and government bodies approach social media regulation. But what exactly will this look like, and how will platforms balance...

hbr.org

 

[MT15]

I don’t believe that the FCC regulates the media nearly enough. I believe all the FCC has done has required Fox to disclose that it is an entertainment channel (not news) and that’s about it.

The FCC regulates interstate/international communications. No matter if the communication comes via print, tv, radio. Social Media should fall under that umbrella as well. I mean, if it doesn’t I am open to finding a new bucket to placing it in.

The end game is just cleaning things up, and preventing another Jan. 6th, Pizza Gate, or riots in Minnesota. The platforms can either better regulate themselves, or have the government step in and put the clamps down on them. The reason I doubt this happens is because these platforms donate heavily to both sides of the aisle so that regulations aren’t passed down (at least not too heavy handed).

Are We Entering a New Era of Social Media Regulation?

The violence at the U.S. Capitol — and the ensuing actions taken by social media platforms — suggest that we may be at a turning point as far as how business leaders and government bodies approach social media regulation. But what exactly will this look like, and how will platforms balance...

hbr.org

I don’t think the bolded statement is true. I found this from a while ago:

“The FCC's regulatory powers extend only to over-the-air broadcasters, who transmit their programs via the publicly owned spectrum.”

Can the FCC crack down on cable?

Calling Janet Jackson's exposed breast "a new low for prime-time television," FCC Chairman Michael K. Powell has promised Congress that he'll do his...

slate.com

 

[MT15]

Also: the FCC didn’t make Fox News change it’s “category” from news to entertainment. From Snopes:

“In 2013, an entertainment website published a fictitious article that claimed Fox News had been reclassified as “satire” by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and that the network would start displaying a disclaimer reading: “This is not a valid news source.” While that fictitious article was clearly not genuine news, the general idea that Fox News was not an “accredited news station” has often been repeated.

In January 2019, we were notified about a meme claiming that Fox News changed its accreditation from “news” to “entertainment,” and that it had no legal obligation to report the facts:

While the term “accredited news station” may sound official, no regulatory body even exists that would accredit Fox News (or CNN, MSNBC, etc.) as a “news” station. In addition, a spokesperson for Fox News said the meme’s claims were false.

Among other issues, the meme is a bit nonsensical because it conflates over-the-air broadcasts and cable broadcasts, as well as Fox Broadcasting Company and Fox News Channel.

The Fox Broadcasting Company is an over-the-air television network licensed by the FCC. This is the station where you find programming such as “The Simpsons. The Fox News Network is a cable news channel. The latter is where you’d find programming such as “Fox & Friends” and “Hannity.” While the FCC licenses and regulates over-the-air broadcasts, it has no authority over cable news channels.

A spokesperson for the FCC told us that, “We do not have any rules or licensing requirements in which a cable channel might categorize itself as news vs. entertainment.”

John Bergmayer, senior counsel at Public Knowledge, an intellectual property group based in Washington, D.C., talked to the New York Daily News in 2017 after the FCC received hundreds of complaints about another cable news channel, CNN. Bergmayer explained that because cable news channels are run by private providers, the FCC has no authority to control the programming.”

 

[MT15]

So, I’m in total agreement with your goal, el, of trying to cut down on the sort of disinformation that is affecting real lives. I’m just not sure how we can accomplish it, and it’s clear we don’t have anything currently in place to accomplish it. Not by the government anyway.

 

[el caliente]

I don’t think the bolded statement is true. I found this from a while ago:

“The FCC's regulatory powers extend only to over-the-air broadcasters, who transmit their programs via the publicly owned spectrum.”

Can the FCC crack down on cable?

Calling Janet Jackson's exposed breast "a new low for prime-time television," FCC Chairman Michael K. Powell has promised Congress that he'll do his...

slate.com

Has anyone told the FCC they they don’t regulate those platforms?

What We Do

The Federal Communications Commission regulates interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and U.S. territories. An independent U.S. government agency overseen by Congress, the commission is the United...

www.fcc.gov

 

[MT15]

Evidently they don’t regulate programming or content. That’s the only thing I can figure. How else can you explain the existence of InfoWars?

Found it in one of the FAQs on the FCC website:

“The FCC receives numerous complaints that television and/or radio networks, stations or their employees or guests have broadcast extreme, incorrect or somehow improper political, economic or social statements.

In some cases, the complaints allege that certain broadcast statements may endanger the United States or its people, or threaten our form of government, our economic system or established institutions like family or marriage. They say these statements are "un-American" and an abuse of freedom of speech. The FCC also receives complaints that some broadcast statements criticize, ridicule, "stereotype" or demean individuals or groups because of the religion, race, nationality, gender, gender identification, or sexual orientation, or other characteristics of the group or individual. Finally, many consumers complain that television or radio broadcasts are obscene, indecent, profane or otherwise offensive.

What is the FCC's Responsibility?​

The FCC is barred by law from trying to prevent the broadcast of any point of view. The Communications Act prohibits the FCC from censoring broadcast material, in most cases, and from making any regulation that would interfere with freedom of speech. Expressions of views that do not involve a "clear and present danger of serious, substantive evil" come under the protection of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of the press and prevents suppression of these expressions by the FCC. According to an FCC opinion on this subject, "the public interest is best served by permitting free expression of views." This principle ensures that the most diverse and opposing opinions will be expressed, even though some may be highly offensive.”

 

[el caliente]

So, I’m in total agreement with your goal, el, of trying to cut down on the sort of disinformation that is affecting real lives. I’m just not sure how we can accomplish it, and it’s clear we don’t have anything currently in place to accomplish it. Not by the government anyway.

If you can create an algorithm determining which kitchen appliance best defines you there is an algo that can cut this shirt short. I believe we are both in bed with disinformation = bad, honest and clear= good. Until you can get to honest and clear you need to do better. This isn’t “how much saw dust/roaches are peanut butter companies allowed to put in a can of Jiffy” this impacts those who can’t stand peanut butter.

 

[el caliente]

Evidently they don’t regulate programming or content. That’s the only thing I can figure. How else can you explain the existence of InfoWars?

Found it in one of the FAQs on the FCC website:

“The FCC receives numerous complaints that television and/or radio networks, stations or their employees or guests have broadcast extreme, incorrect or somehow improper political, economic or social statements.

In some cases, the complaints allege that certain broadcast statements may endanger the United States or its people, or threaten our form of government, our economic system or established institutions like family or marriage. They say these statements are "un-American" and an abuse of freedom of speech. The FCC also receives complaints that some broadcast statements criticize, ridicule, "stereotype" or demean individuals or groups because of the religion, race, nationality, gender, gender identification, or sexual orientation, or other characteristics of the group or individual. Finally, many consumers complain that television or radio broadcasts are obscene, indecent, profane or otherwise offensive.

What is the FCC's Responsibility?​

The FCC is barred by law from trying to prevent the broadcast of any point of view. The Communications Act prohibits the FCC from censoring broadcast material, in most cases, and from making any regulation that would interfere with freedom of speech. Expressions of views that do not involve a "clear and present danger of serious, substantive evil" come under the protection of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of the press and prevents suppression of these expressions by the FCC. According to an FCC opinion on this subject, "the public interest is best served by permitting free expression of views." This principle ensures that the most diverse and opposing opinions will be expressed, even though some may be highly offensive.”

Yeah, we are going to “regulate communication”, just don’t count on it being any more severe than a pillow fight with the Swedish Bikini team, or a nap interrupted by someone offering you a medium rare T-bone steak.

I suppose there is some hope of real change under Rosenwurcel (how couldn’t there be considering Ajit Pai was the Fox guarding the hen house), but something needs to be done to effect change.

Someone on the Coronavirus thread mentioned that this country might be beyond saving, and I bashfuly agree. Like Radiohead said “you do it to yourself, you do” sadly unlike Radiohead sang, we don’t just do this to ourselves and no one else.

 

[MT15]

If you can create an algorithm determining which kitchen appliance best defines you there is an algo that can cut this shirt short. I believe we are both in bed with disinformation = bad, honest and clear= good. Until you can get to honest and clear you need to do better. This isn’t “how much saw dust/roaches are peanut butter companies allowed to put in a can of Jiffy” this impacts those who can’t stand peanut butter.

Okay - but the companies themselves have to implement the algorithms, or else you run up against the First Amendment. And the companies have zero profit motive to do so, in fact - they are financially incentivized to do the opposite. The crazy stuff drives their clicks.

 

[el caliente]

Okay - but the companies themselves have to implement the algorithms, or else you run up against the First Amendment. And the companies have zero profit motive to do so, in fact - they are financially incentivized to do the opposite. The crazy stuff drives their clicks.

And yelling fire in a crowded theater gets the reaction the one screaming it is seeking.

I’m not saying it’s going to be easy, but unless you get a handle on that, expect more of the same. I don’t think any of us want that.

 

[MT15]

I think, and admittedly I haven’t given this a whole lot of thought, that we have to find a way to financially incentivize the huge companies to eliminate disinformation. One huge problem with that is that generally 20-25% of the population is going to claim that any disinformation is actually true.

I hope our window to curtail this hasn’t passed.

 

[MT15]

I hadn’t seen this before. It illustrates some of the difficulties:

 

[SamAndreas]

OK, this article belongs here.

Opinion | Why Trump’s off-handed comment about his health could be a watershed moment

He's usually very mum about any ailments, so this shouldn't be taken at face value, especially leading up to the 2024 elections.

www.nbcnews.com

I don't give articles like this five cents.

But a buffalo nickle means something at any time. So... .

It means it was coined in the desert where it was dry. I don't know if that means it is invalid. If it's invalid it means it should be ignored.

Trump should be ignored. If he were ignored he'd implode.

 

[superchuck500]

 

[efil4]

Trump's social media app facing financial fallout

Truth Social is locked in a bitter battle with one of its vendors claiming that the platform is stiffing the company out of some contractually obligated payments.

www.foxbusiness.com

Host Co says owed 1.6mm.

Caveat emptor.