| ScaringChildren |
10-24-2018 08:13 AM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tethler
(Post 2798320)
I don't think politicians should be the one to determine that due to the obvious conflicts of interest. A neutral (or at least attempting to be neutral, because who are we kidding, nothing is truely neutral) body should be able to assess trustworthiness based on verifiable facts. But that's just my opinion.
|
I agree for the most part. However, "bad behavior" is too broad of a phrase to get any kind of accurate opinion. Bad behavior could mean anything from fraud to foreign subterfuge. Also, the poll found that most Americans (72%) think “it should be easier to sue reporters who knowingly publish false information.” So Republicans aren't the only ones with a stern attitude towards news outlets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tethler
(Post 2798320)
InfoWars wasn't shuttered. Companies chose to no longer host his content, as they have the right to do. He can still self publish (which is what news organizations do themselves. If Facebook stopped allowing NYT links to be posted, it's not the same as shuttering the NYT). He was not forced to stop making content by the government, as the republicans surveyed think Trump should be able do.
|
Ah, the classic "Just use another Google" argument.
The problem is, if you self publish, the domain registrars yank your domain and the payment processors yank your service. It already happened to Gab.ai, a social media company which promotes absolute freedom of speech and expression.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tethler
(Post 2798320)
Yikes. I think our definitions of "news outlet" are drastically different if you think conspiracy theory is the same thing.
|
I'm sure you've seen Alex Jones sperging out about intergalactic demons, but as funny as those memes are, they report on current news stories for the majority of their show. So yes, they qualify as a news source.
Don Lemon at CNN spoke about a plane falling into a black hole once, does that mean CNN is not a news source now? |
