Trump Rolls Back Online Privacy in Regulatory Shell Game

[3db]

I'd disagree. There is a big difference just between Fox and CNN, never mind NPR, CBC, the NYT, BBC or even Al Jazeera and other legitimate media that strive for objectivity. To suggest they are all the same is a false equivalence. Fox makes no pretenses about its biases except to vainly proclaim they are "fair and balanced."

The only people being fooled are the people who believe that the outlets of Bannon, O'Reilly and Hannity are equally as credible as NPR or PBS.....or CNN. There are ample accurate news sources. We should not conflate the ones that are not credible with those that are. Such a view is in opposition to reality.

The difference between Fox and CNN are political leanings and that's all. They are both very careful which stories to tell and if they both have to report on something their leanings, they are very careful to "spin" it their way. Even the CBC, our news in Canada has its slant. Don't be so nieve to think that news channels aren't here to first and foremost make to report news. They are here first and foremost to sell a subscriber base.

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

Don't be so nieve to think that news channels aren't here to first and foremost make to report news. They are here first and foremost to sell a subscriber base.

Agreed. CNN is known to thrive on disaster porn

The difference between Fox and CNN are political leanings and that's all. They are both very careful which stories to tell and if they both have to report on something their leanings, they are very careful to "spin" it their way.

This is where I do disagree with you. CNN has definitely is more careful verifying their story sources and sticking to high journalistic standards. Fox - not so much. Now Fox luckily is not Breitbart, but they not in same professional league as CNN as far as being carefull with truth and facts.[/QUOTE]

 

[rojo]

This is where I do disagree with you. CNN has definitely is more careful verifying their story sources and sticking to high journalistic standards. Fox - not so much. Now Fox luckily is not Breitbart, but they not in same professional league as CNN as far as being carefull with truth and facts.

I think what you mean is that CNN is more careful verifying their news reporting. The distinction is important. More prominent perhaps are the analysis pundits, who enjoy more air time than actual news reporting. CNN's regular reliance on merchants of doubt to give the impression of a balanced viewpoint does more harm than good. "Think tanks" have no business being associated with news. They're the primary source for man made climate change denial, uncertainty about the environmental impact of fracking, and every other controversial topic benefiting big business where science should have the last word but somehow doesn't.

On the other hand, the actual news parts of Fox News also adhere to rigorous standards for journalism, and they do a good job of reporting what is, rather than what we should think. The problem there, though, is that the Fox News channel resembles news about as closely as the History channel resembles history. Actual news coverage only earns an hour or so per day of air time.

 

[Audiot]

Don't be so nieve to think that news channels aren't here to first and foremost make to report news. They are here first and foremost to sell a subscriber base.

How they do that, the methods employed and the integrity of the content is what makes all the difference. You are conflating content, ideology and methodology with commerce. That's become a meme of the times, and a simple point of view that obscures reality. Just as does Fox News.

I prefer not to be thrust into the position of defending CNN's choice of tidbits to cover as they're not my go to for news in any case. That would be NPR and PBS. But if forced to chose, I'd take CNN over Fox every time for accuracy of actual reportage.

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

I think what you mean is that CNN is more careful verifying their news reporting. The distinction is important. More prominent perhaps are the analysis pundits, who enjoy more air time than actual news reporting. CNN's regular reliance on merchants of doubt to give the impression of a balanced viewpoint does more harm than good. "Think tanks" have no business being associated with news. They're the primary source for man made climate change denial, uncertainty about the environmental impact of fracking, and every other controversial topic benefiting big business where science should have the last word but somehow doesn't.

On the other hand, the actual news parts of Fox News also adhere to rigorous standards for journalism, and they do a good job of reporting what is, rather than what we should think. The problem there, though, is that the Fox News channel resembles news about as closely as the History channel resembles history. Actual news coverage only earns an hour or so per day of air time.

Agreed, so called balanced approach is bs, especially if the other side is so clearly in the wrong, delusional or misguided.
But not everyone at CNN would take BS:
Just going to leave this here:

 

[3db]

How they do that, the methods employed and the integrity of the content is what makes all the difference. You are conflating content, ideology and methodology with commerce. That's become a meme of the times, and a simple point of view that obscures reality. Just as does Fox News.

I prefer not to be thrust into the position of defending CNN's choice of tidbits to cover as they're not my go to for news in any case. That would be NPR and PBS. But if forced to chose, I'd take CNN over Fox every time for accuracy of actual reportage.

I choose CNN over Fox as well and PBS over CNN. So you disagree that there is no agenda in CNN or Fox to sell subscribership or garner top spot for ratings?

 

[everettT]

https://heatst.com/politics/former-fec-chairwoman-calls-for-regulations-of-political-speech-on-the-internet/


Careful what you wish for or they could have shut this thread down

 

[shadyJ]

https://heatst.com/politics/former-fec-chairwoman-calls-for-regulations-of-political-speech-on-the-internet/


Careful what you wish for or they could have shut this thread down

What irony. In a debate over the integrity of news sources, you link to a story from a nastily partisan, lop-sided, sleazy hard-right website. Here is a challenge for you: now try to find that story as reported by a reputable news organization.

 

[Bizarro_Stormy]

Yep...
I believe inHeatStreet is yet another Murdoch owned company....

 

[everettT]

What irony. In a debate over the integrity of news sources, you link to a story from a nastily partisan, lop-sided, sleazy hard-right website. Here is a challenge for you: now try to find that story as reported by a reputable news organization.

I'll save you the trouble of goofu skills
https://www.google.com/search?q=fec+commisioner+regulate+politicak+speech&oq=fec+commisioner+regulate+politicak+speech&aqs=chrome..69i57j33.24117j1j4&client=ms-android-att-us&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

Well known and not new lol... just not reported by msm and fwiw it was meant to be light harted and comical

 

[lovinthehd]

I'll save you the trouble of goofu skills
https://www.google.com/search?q=fec+commisioner+regulate+politicak+speech&oq=fec+commisioner+regulate+politicak+speech&aqs=chrome..69i57j33.24117j1j4&client=ms-android-att-us&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

Well known and not new lol... just not reported by msm and fwiw it was meant to be light harted and comical

Since when is NYT not mainstream? Their emphasis is a bit different from the right wing turd blogs.

 

[shadyJ]

I'll save you the trouble of goofu skills
https://www.google.com/search?q=fec+commisioner+regulate+politicak+speech&oq=fec+commisioner+regulate+politicak+speech&aqs=chrome..69i57j33.24117j1j4&client=ms-android-att-us&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

Well known and not new lol... just not reported by msm and fwiw it was meant to be light harted and comical

Maybe I need to get my sarcasm detector recalibrated.

As for the story, it is pure BS as reported by all those garbage right-wing conspiracy theory blogs. The NY Times story gives it context and uses actual sources for their reportage, you know, sort of like professional journalism.

 

[everettT]

Guess I'm the only one that doesn't understand the context of what she has repeatedly said. Oh well I won't wreck this thread anymore...

 

[lovinthehd]

Guess I'm the only one that doesn't understand the context of what she has repeatedly been interpreted as saying by right wing blog nuts. Oh well I won't wreck this thread anymore...

FTFY

 

[wiyosaya]

YES VPN service will obviously stop ISP from getting that sweet sweet browsing data, but not all VPN providers are equally good.

As I understand it, even a VPN will not shield an internet user because eventually, that user's data pops out of the VPN onto the network of some other ISP. That ISP is then free to sell it, or, if it is the same ISP yet in a different region, it may be harder for them to piece the data back together, yet it is possible to do so.

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

As I understand it, even a VPN will not shield an internet user because eventually, that user's data pops out of the VPN onto the network of some other ISP. That ISP is then free to sell it, or, if it is the same ISP yet in a different region, it may be harder for them to piece the data back together, yet it is possible to do so.

Technically yes, but you could always select exit node in country with more respect for it's citizens privacy

 

[wiyosaya]

My question is, who in hell would be for the rollback?

ISPs and the puppets that have ISP strings attached.

 

[everettT]

FTFY

So when she said and pushed for it, she didn't really do so? This is exactly why I need to stay away from political threads. I am a news junkie so I get enough of it there.

 

[wiyosaya]

Technically yes, but you could always select exit node in country with more respect for it's citizens privacy

Not trying to argue, but if you select some respectful country and your destination is then back in the US, how does that play out especially if your origin ISP has injected a supercookie into your originating packets? All the data in the VPN stream will be encrypted, true. However, there are data packets that have to surround the data stream and there is where supercookies could and would be injected. Without the packets that surround the stream, no data would flow across the internet at all. You have to go through your ISP in the first place to get to the VPN. There is no way around that. Far fetched, perhaps, but some marketing director somewhere might request this sort of tracking for business reasons. There is nothing technically stopping it.

I completely agree with you in all respects, and this article has done the best that I have seen at giving reasons why this should never have passed.

 

[wiyosaya]

Amen on the CNN observation! CNN used to perform actual journalism years ago until they started inviting the merchants of doubt to give the impression of a balanced viewpoint.

Personally, I would term it "started seeking ratings."