104 pointsby theahura4 hours ago7 comments
  • jacquesm4 hours ago
    Maybe if we're going to name the department of defense the department of war we can go all the way and rename the FCC to the 'ministry of propaganda'?

    A free press is worth its weight in gold. If you let go of that you're going to lose more than you bargain for. All those free speech advocates are a bit quiet on this, wonder what happened to them.

    • matthewdgreen4 hours ago
      It would obviously be the Ministry of Truth.
      • jacquesm4 hours ago
        You're probably right.
      • Bender3 hours ago
        That was already taken by the DHS and then dismantled in 2022.
      • tombert4 hours ago
        I assumed it would the the Ministry of Trump. He likes putting his name on things.
    • skeledrew4 hours ago
      Is a free press even worth anything of the country is already otherwise lost?
      • jacquesm4 hours ago
        Yes, because it is a backbone through which people trying to hold things together can communicate. Remember how the USSR supposedly held together and could not be defeated, and how the Nazi's overran Europe and there were many who figured the easy way out was to just give up and accept it? The free press held the line, in Western Europe through underground newspapers, which made a massive difference in keeping people informed and in the East between 45 and ~86 through the various - sometimes hand copied - smuggled literature.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underground_media_in_German-oc...

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samizdat

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underground_press

        Soldarity would have never gotten off the ground without that network and speaking for my own country I suspect that without de Volkskrant and Het Parool the war would have gotten much closer to completely eradicating the Jewish population here. It was bad enough as it was but the network that coordinated the distribution of the underground newspapers was also instrumental in keeping the underground resistance network going. The one fed off the other and vice versa, both as a training ground and as a messenger service. Lots of those stories will never be told (unfortunately) but there were a ton of very brave people that knew full well they risked a one-way trip to the dunes if discovered.

    • thrance3 hours ago
      During a press conference yesterday, Hegseth, the secretary of war, received a question on Iran from CNN that he didn't feel the need to answer, and then went on a rant about how he can't wait for Ellison to buy the network and rid it of any opposition to the regime [1]. He literally spelt it out.

      Free press in the US is already dead, all media belongs to conservative pedophile oligarchs who use it to manipulate the masses and push their warmongering narratives.

      > All those free speech advocates are a bit quiet on this, wonder what happened to them.

      There are no principled free speech advocates on the right, only people who have an issue with the media not being completely controlled by their side. Their silence then makes perfect sense: they are getting exactly what they wanted.

      [1] https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/pentagon-chie...

      • jacquesm3 hours ago
        Yes, they are no longer even pretending to hide, I think that's the thing that really changed. Up to a few years ago there would always be the figleaf. Now, they're just stating openly what they're up to and nobody bats an eye. It's an extreme case of the normalization of deviance. And in a way that is the answer to that age old question: "How could they let it happen?" when contemplating Germany ca. 1936.
    • johnsmith18404 hours ago
      I mean it's not like any administration was any different? Numerous stories all over of how propoganda from US admins demicrat and republican flood the systems.

      And that's just the stuff we know. You don't think AI propoganda bots are flooding every social media you know of?

      Traditional news media has a totally wrecked credibility on both sides. If we are subsidizing what is clearly a dying market why not stop?

      I trust social media posts as much as Fox news or CNN (very little) which maybe is a me thing but I don't think I'm alone.

      Best news I can find now is finding one individual person whose personal reputation still can matter and follow them.

      • jacquesm4 hours ago
        > I mean it's not like any administration was any different?

        If you really believe that then I don't think we're going to have much to discuss.

        This is not one of those 'both sides' discussions. This is a current affairs discussion.

        • johnsmith18403 hours ago
          Ok I guess? I find it hard not to see democrats heavily pushing for anti free speech across numerous systems.

          Simplest points are: 1. Hate speech 2. Covid 3. Europe as a whole (correlation)

          Hard to say america is terrible for free speech when you contrast it with the more liberal europeans that actively arrest on hate speech. If more extreeme democrats had their way we'd 100% be arresting people for hate speech.

          I agree with the covid ones because to be honest people are dumb. But it's dishonest to say only trump is after free speech.

          If you think trump is big bad then you need to realize the trumpers have thought the SAME about your party for like a decade now. In their eyes they are just returning the favor.

          • jacquesm3 hours ago
            Yes, (1) dogwhistle for 'racism is ok' (2) my bodily autonomy beats you staying alive (3) see (1).

            Note that I'm not an American, but I know a grifter and an asshole when I see one and trump is both, without a doubt. If you believe the two parties in the USA are equal in this sense then you are willfully blind at this point.

            The number of people that are comfortable with outright racism and xenophobia on HN is scary, the number of people that are unable to see the hand behind the curtain during a time when we were very vulnerable and who seem to take their personal comfort above the health of others is scary as well. But I guess that what you get when you tell a good chunk of the world that they are movie stars authors and celebrities.

            COVID was interesting: as pandemics go this was a mild one, and yet, we fucked it up and here you are using it as a plank in your argument that the government has too much power. Sorry, but if that was your takeaway then you really were not paying attention and you probably have no clue about biology.

            If you have the time and the spare cash go buy the book Spillover, read it and then check the date when it was written. Also realize that it is about the next pandemic, not the previous one. It probably won't do your sleep any good but at least you'll be a bit better informed.

            Clearly you're not stupid, this comment:

            https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46983287

            was on the money. Now follow the money and see where it leads.

            Also, and final note on this: from the perspective of many other countries the USA has a one party system, with one party as a milder version of the other, but that doesn't mean that that not-so-mild version does not have some material differences, and that some of those differences may well lead to destabilizing the country on a scale not seen since the last few hundred years.

            • Rodeoclash2 hours ago
              Thank you for taking the time to write this out. I've long since given up having any debate with people on these subjects so it's heartening to see some still flying the flag.
            • johnsmith1840an hour ago
              So yeah you're on a US platform americans don't think like europeans.

              1. Racism is Legal in US, disagree if you want but that's a core stance baked VERY deep into our system. Nobody said it was morally right but nobody should be jailed for it. 2. My point was literal free speech attacks justified or not happen. My view was covid is it's kinda like our laws of imminent danger you can't proactibely threaten people with intent and you can't do stuff like yell fire in a movie theater.

              The intent to stop racism/xenophobia is moral but the mechanisms are bad. Whoever controls the deffinition has the ability to inflict harm.

              My point is if you come to an argument that only trump is attacking free speech while saying the other side doesn't or it's justified because "it's morally right" it is proving my view.

              If EU swings far right and the same tools to attack racism are flipped to attack liberal beliefs the EXACT argument you hold will be used against you.

              They will say: "lgbt is morally wrong and therefore any pro lgbt statements on social media are now an arrestable offense" without true free speech baked in that's possible.

              • johnsmith1840an hour ago
                Should clarify "racist speech or thought is legal" clearly you can't do actions against a race of people legally
              • jacquesman hour ago
                > So yeah you're on a US platform americans don't think like europeans.

                I know lots of Americans, both online and in person, I see very little difference between 'how Americans think' and 'how Europeans think'. What I did see is that you automatically assumed I was on the other side of you politicall, and that isn't the case, we are at least an ocean (and in many ways a world) apart and I figured you deserved a heads up so that at least you can calibrate your arguments. Besides that, I've lived on the other side of the US border for quite a long time and probably have more friends in the USA than I do in Europe.

                > 1. Racism is Legal in US, disagree if you want but that's a core stance baked VERY deep into our system.

                I don't care about racism (or, racist speech) being legal in the United States in the sense that I think it should not be legal anywhere, but I'm more upset at the fact that there are a number of outright racists active on HN who for some reason are not shut down. This bothers me at a very fundamental level because it's the Nazi bar problem: if you visit a bar and there are Nazi's there then you are visiting a Nazi bar. It risks guilt by association and I'm here under my real name.

                HN has a serious problem that it refuses to acknowledge and this goes way beyond what is legal and what is not, it boils down to 'is this the kind of community that we want to create'. I think the best way to address that is - as you are finding out - to speak up against this as much as possible, though I have to admit it is getting more than a little tiring.

                > 2. My point was literal free speech attacks justified or not happen.

                That's true, but there are times when your right to 'free speech' can be temporarily trumped (I hate that word, but we're stuck with it) by the right of others to want to stay alive. This is perfectly fine and only the most ardent free speech absolutists will hold that there should be no limits at all (usually, they are also the first to apply for legal protection when those free speech rights are used against them, especially if they're wealthy and/or powerful). If you think free speech is so holy check out who are clamoring the loudest for it in the present and then study - as someone else in this thread already mentioned - Popper and see what he has to say about this. Everything in moderation, even absolutism is a good starting point.

                > The intent to stop racism/xenophobia is moral but the mechanisms are bad.

                No, the mechanisms are just the tools to not stop it but to stop its spread and as such the experts are the Germans. They have experienced first hand what it is like to have no holds on how far you are willing to let the freedom of speech go before you are on a path that will harm you for generations to come. It's possible that every geographic region has to learn this lesson on its own time, the problem is that we as humanity can not afford that luxury.

                Racism, xenophobia, nazism: all of these are very bad things and if we all recognize that and realize that mental viruses spread through the same vectors as all of our other information that it is a good thing to combat them in the arena where they dominate and fester. Turning a blind eye and saying 'it is only speech' is the same as saying about Anthrax 'it's only a couple of molecules'. You can't outlaw molecules, but we definitely have ruled out the use and possession of Anthrax.

                > If EU swings far right and the same tools to attack racism are flipped to attack liberal beliefs the EXACT argument you hold will be used against you.

                No, they won't be. I believe there is a time to talk and that there is a time to act and that would be a time to stop talking.

                > They will say: "lgbt is morally wrong and therefore any pro lgbt statements on social media are now an arrestable offense" without true free speech baked in that's possible.

                I will be right there on the barriers, you can take that to the bank. I'm not the kind of person that just sits around and yaps, stuff gets done. And let's not pretend that the freedom of speech is how the LGBT community got their recognition in the first place, they were squelched everywhere possible and there are more than one States in the Union now where their rights are trampled left, right and center.

                • peytonan hour ago
                  Not to be rude but we don’t know where Europeans stand politically and genuinely do not care. Collectively you don’t speak your minds and do not defend those who dare to do so. Which is the point. We all come from people who had reasons not to be where they were previously. We’ve seen the guillotines and the bread lines and the famines and we don’t want that here.
                  • jacquesm38 minutes ago
                    No, you are rude, and you're wrong besides. Imagine: being ignorant and being proud of that ignorance at the same time.
          • tastyface2 hours ago
            "If you think trump is big bad then you need to realize the trumpers have thought the SAME about your party for like a decade now."

            Yes, and they were wrong, or far more plausibly, blatantly lying about it. The Trump administration's assaults on press freedom are, factually speaking, orders of magnitude worse than anything Biden was purported to do. They claimed Biden did what they *wanted* to do all along.

  • curt154 hours ago
    "Should the government censor speech it doesn't like? Of course not. The FCC doesn't have a roving mandate to police speech in the name of the \"public interest\"." -- Brendan Carr 2019
    • matthewdgreen4 hours ago
      So much of the last four years was watching fools and dishonest people pretend that the government was coming to take away your free speech and you'd better elect [people who routinely lied about everything and clearly had no principles] to protect you.
      • johnsmith18404 hours ago
        Wait there was active efforts to tailor free speech all over the place? Are you going to make an argument tyere has EVER been a US admin that didn't try to do this?
        • gtayloran hour ago
          This “both sides” argument is so weak.
      • verdverm4 hours ago
        Every accusation is an admission from the people running the united states right now
  • foogazi4 hours ago
    They can’t take your license away if you don’t have one
  • tombert4 hours ago
    Fucking Christ.

    I still don’t understand how anyone heard Trump bragging about how he’s going to “open up those libel laws”, in addition to all the other idiotic shit that he said, and still decided to vote for him.

    I am sure people had their reasons, and maybe some of them even weren’t racist, but I am still having trouble comprehending how anyone didn’t see all this shit coming.

    https://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/02/donald-trump...

    • Smoosh2 hours ago
      The tweet/meme about the face eating leopards seems to be entirely applicable to our current times.
    • bathtub3653 hours ago
      They rightly assumed the laws wouldn’t be used against them by this admin
  • jauntywundrkind4 hours ago
    It's deplorable that there's such empty silence on Carr and his incessant snowflake whining from the right. For a party that has crowed so much about 1A! It's unfathomable, just depraved, to have a party that will complain and whine so loudly, and then have nothing at all to say when you have a FCC commissioner asserting that broadcast rights means saying only what the government says is good.

    Utterly deplorable. This man is a high traitor to the constitution and this nation. And the right: seemingly AWOL, on an issue they claimed was so important! It's so fallen. It's so unfortunate the nation haa to be sundered by people of so low moral and political regard, people who seemingly care so little about values and democracy and the nation.

    • suzzer994 hours ago
      > For a party that has crowed so much about 1A!

      Just like the anti-war stuff, it was always convenient hypocrisy that they instantly abandon when the time is right.

    • 650REDHAIR3 hours ago
      If it wasn’t for double standards they wouldn’t have any at all.

      We’ve seen it every 4-8 years for decades.

  • allears4 hours ago
    Well there's a clear 1st Amendment violation. Wonder if he'll get sued, and if so, wonder if the plaintiff will win, and if so, whether Carr will abide by any judgment.
    • pstuart4 hours ago
      The irony of this would be quite amusing if it wasn't so dangerous. Where are all the "free speech absolutists" now?
      • refulgentis4 hours ago
        HN was such an interesting place in 2024, they’ve all disappeared, sadly.

        I’ve been genuinely, deeply, curious where those posters went. It was the site at that point.

        The most I’ve seen in months and months is a limp-wristed handwave at “but humans have gooned and been racist forever”, in response to someone saying they wouldn’t choose to work for X.ai because it accelerates those things.

        My most substantive idea is it was an unsustainable coalition, and that’s why we’re not seeing it much. You need to be for an ugly conjunction of things instead of against “woke” and Columbia students, thus you won’t get coalition-wide social approval (upvotes) anymore.

        So they’re almost certainly here, but, downvoted to the point of invisibility unless you scour every comment.

        Another case study to ponder is our host’s CEO, Gary Tan. Full-on loud-throated American juche stuff at beginning of tariffs. Now he has his own political website he built with Claude. And it’s LLM-generated articles that are riffs on Free Press articles he liked and they’re really tediously boring niche stuff even if you’re full in on team red, even before the AI writing cringe effect on the reader. Ex. “Mackenzie bezos philanthropy is fake and destructive because one college that got money hired the college presidents son and also enrollment dropped the next year”

        • jacquesm3 hours ago
          Well, we have a bunch of really problematic accounts on HN and I suspect that rather than to go into 'endless curious conversation' with those characters people just give up at some point. It's interesting in a way because one of PGs most famous post is the one about 'no broken windows'.
          • pstuart3 hours ago
            I'm all for having conversations with those having other viewpoints, but it doesn't seem to be possible when they don't argue in good faith (or even grounded in reality).

            I take zero pleasure in saying this, but "the other side" is fucking insane. There's no arguing from first principles, let alone acknowledging that there are issues of concern with one's propositions.

            In the case of "free speech", there's a failure to acknowledge the fundamental proposition of it when used in the US -- in that it's about the government not being able to prosecute you for speech that it doesn't like. This is literally the basis of the OP.

            I'm a fan of Christopher Hitchens and he embodied that "free speech absolutism" argument convincingly (as otherwise its a pathway to censorship and oppression), but I think it's also important to recognize Karl Popper's Intolerance of Intolerance.

            This stuff is no longer idle speculation -- it is an active facet of authoritarianism that is playing out around us right now.

            • jacquesm3 hours ago
              Indeed, and it is interesting how all those countries that have seen this up close have reasonable upper limits and courts that will try to find a balance without falling over one way or the other. Obviously you won't be able to please everybody all the time but we're - as you so eloquently put it - no longer in a speculative domain but in one where you can see the consequences play out in realtime.

              It's like toddlers with guns, they may not know exactly how the guns work but they're bloody dangerous all the same.

              Popper has it right, far more so than most other philosophers because he's coming at it almost from a security perspective: the system will have holes and you need to be willing to be pragmatic about that, rather than dogmatic.

              My solution for HN is simple by the way, I give up, but one account at the time and I simply block them. That doesn't help the site but it does help my blood pressure. The one I use is called 'Comments owl for HN'.

            • refulgentisan hour ago
              On coarser sites (Elon’s, now) I’d say “1st amendment sez muh tweets MUST be published!!!”, never quite figured out a less coarse way to say it, but you just showed me.
        • exceptione4 hours ago
          You can be intelligent and believe the narratives.

          You can be intelligent and see you were fooled, seeing the sponsors of the narratives don't share any of your ideals to begin with.

          Many are confused, feeling betrayed, open for new perspectives. Some will double down as we know from group dynamics in sects.

          Don't feel sad, it is a good sign of healthy progress. Project 2025 and the likes are a very destructive force, not something to gamble your democracy on.

    • gjsman-10004 hours ago
      Airwaves are not protected by the 1st amendment, due to the limited amount of bandwidth that physically exists. As such, the FCC has extraordinary powers, including enforcing watersheds, forcing children’s content hours (“E/I”), censoring the F-bomb, and enforcing a 7-second delay on live content to prevent another Timberlake Super Bowl.

      The first amendment also does not apply to highway billboards; which is why you never see a vagina on the roadway. Not all government control of speech is oppressive or inconsistent.

  • jmclnx4 hours ago
    A better link:

    https://xcancel.com/BrendanCarrFCC/status/203285541423304717...

    BTW, the link is a waste of your time reading it, it is just the current US regime whining again.

    • decimalenough4 hours ago
      No, this is deeply disturbing. The person "whining" is the head of the regulatory body that gets to decide what can be broadcast, a supposedly non-partisan role, and yet he's just straight up threatened to cancel the licenses of everybody who's not vocally supportive of what you term the current regime.
    • theahura4 hours ago
      thanks, I should've used xcancel. @dang I would love if we could update to using this link instead
      • Jtsummers4 hours ago
        xcancel is like archive links, they prefer links to the original with bypasses/alternatives in comments.
    • g-mork4 hours ago
      I've read so much trump spam recently that on reading this my first thought was that you misspelled winning hehe

      Planet announced last week there will be a 14 day delay on all commercial satellite imagery from the middle east. It shocks me how transparent we are about information war and voluntarily lying to ourselves at particular moments