Comment on UK considers forcing social media firms to prioritise trusted news
Zombie@feddit.uk 15 hours ago
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?
Fedegenerate@fedinsfw.app 15 hours ago
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, is also a good thing. Regulating media to a minimum standard and removing 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.
Tiresia@slrpnk.net 14 hours ago
Elect a Tory/Reform government.
Tory/Reform government declares Musk/Murdoch trusted news and independent local journalists non-trusted.
???
A good thing.
Fedegenerate@fedinsfw.app 14 hours ago
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).
We could write standards that are unbiased, example: reporting must be factually accurate in detail. 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 us.