Oh I’ve read about this one!
They can call the department that determines who’s trusted the Ministry of Truth.
And then why even bother regulating the news when they could just produce the news themselves? Then we’ll all know we’re getting official, government approved, facts and figures.
What could possibly go wrong?
We do produce the news ourselves: the BBC is, in reality, state media. BBC news is, in reality, state news.
I’m kinda agnostic on this one. Keeping the influence of Musk/Murdoch/et al out of our media is a good thing. Keeping incendiary propaganda produced by foreign powers out, is also a good thing. Regulating media to a minimum standard (for example: Reporting must be factual in both detail, and spirit) then removing/punishing media that doesn’t conform is a good thing.
But, it will be managed by people and they’re shit, they’re biased, and their judgement is garbage… Worse it will be managed by Ofcom, and they’re even worse: see GB News.
So on balance: fuck 'em. Once they prove they’re proficient at managing the media they already do, I might trust them to manage more.
-
Elect a Tory/Reform government.
-
Tory/Reform government declares Musk/Murdoch trusted news and independent local journalists non-trusted.
-
???
-
A good thing.
Exactly, as I said: people are shit, they’re biased and their judgement is garbage.
We could spin it off to an independent committee, but Tories could just fill the upper ranks with Tories (see BBC, supposedly independent but in reality far from it).
We could write standards that are unbiased, example: reporting must be factually accurate in detail and spirit. But the standards will be selectively applied, see Ofcom/GB News.
As I said, I’m agnostic. Standards should be set and enforced, it’s just a shame it would be a reflection of those in power, so fuck em.
-
I’m actually ok with this, if it only applies to the biggest social media companies (10million+ UK users) who have algorithmically ranked content. And it should apply to what gets weighted in the feeds, not whether the content exists on the site at all.
I think big tech companies shouldn’t be held responsible for all user generated content on their site, but they should be held responsible for the content they actively promote via the feeds, if they do so algorithmically. I think this article (from a US perspective) presents a good framework for moderation. The more you are a “dumb pipe”, the less moderation you should have, and the more you actively make user-facing decisions about content, the more oversight and moderation you should have. And, if you are a small provider (like the fediverse 😜) then you should be exempt from these regulations to encourage competition.
We have public service broadcasters who are regulated by Ofcom. It’s not perfect - Ofcom should be strengthened, made more politically independent and should have much more teeth, and they’ve been woeful in dealing with GBeebies - but the regulated public service broadcasters are among the most trusted news providers in the UK.
I’m sympathetic to the idea that any kind of restriction is a slippery slope. And I know the public service broadcasters are not perfect, there are problems of political interference that need to be dealt with, and of course they don’t appeal to everyone. But they are also among the most trusted news outlets?
I’m also sympathetic to the idea that the government is solving this the wrong way round. That they are trying to fix this on the supply side when really it’s a demand problem - people just don’t like the regulated news providers enough so they don’t get promoted by the feeds on social media. But that argument presumes that the tech companies’ feeds are purely responding to consumer demand; social media companies are now mostly owned by people who want to, or are careless about, interfering with our democracy and promoting particular ideologies. So I think the era of trusting that whatever the algorithms promote is just based on what we want is over.
who have algorithmically ranked content
I think this is the key.
They’d do better to force the companies to deprioritise false and malicious content.
Every other video is some lunatic talking about chemtrails or spreading lies about asylum seekers.
Are they going to define trusted news with that one?
Have you been on Facebook recently? The current state of what counts for “news” on there is a disgrace.
Have you been on Facebook recently?
No
So why do you even care?
Cause people being fed bullshit effects everyone?
The government were recently talking about even comment sections being considered social media. So it’s hardly just Facebook that is at risk of this applying to.
Some people I know talk about some wild ideas. I can’t imagine, even with what strongly appears to be symptoms of mental illness, that they came up with it in a vacuum.
There’s some really awful stuff on Facebook and YouTube and xitter.
My brother is one of these.
We both had exactly the same middle class upbringing. Loving parents, decent schools, holidays etc.
He’s gone down a rabbit hole of conspiracies. Chemtrails, faked moon landings, you name it, he believed it.
He was fucking irritating but his nonsense wasn’t actually hurting anyone. However now he is trying to convince my nephew that vaccines are evil and they’ve decided to home educate my niece.
Its all stuff hes been exposed to on the internet.
Readers of Novara Media will no doubt be up in arms about this, but they are part of the problem.
