How is it wrong to use an average to compare two different time periods with different marginal tax rates for the 1%? I understand how marginal tax rates work. Perhaps you don't understand averages and effective tax rate. Using the highest tax bracket isn't useful in determining what the rich paid then and now. Nor does it help you understand what is a good tax rate or the behaviors that are associated with raising taxes (avoidance).
The poor aren't doing better.
I am not convinced by this. There has been stagnation but by nearly every measure the poor are doing fine or better. Even if I was convinced by it the problems that are facing the poor are not going to be solved by raising taxes. Raising taxes doesn't solve every problem. You can say that increased income inequality will lead to guillotines. I can say that raising taxes will lead to Yellow Vests. I am not sure you have a basis to predict any revolution in the US based on income inequality. If so you can tell me exactly what % of income equality will lead to revolution and when that threshold will be reached. I don't think it's that simple and I don't think income inequality is a good predictor of revolutions.
You are so removed from the people you are talking about that you have a fundamentally different experience in life. Which means you will not understand their problems
Projection much? You have no idea what my life is or has been.
I am not going to respond to everything because it is too crazy (wealth is taken!!!! Tell that to Amazon the next time you choose to use their service) or you didn't read my comment or the article.
not let it concentrate at the top to stay.
Sure. That alone doesn't convince me that we need to raise taxes. It's a platitude that has no insight on proper tax levels or justification on why current levels are not "fair".
I quoted an average. Because as the article pointed out that few people do pay the top marginal rate because of avoidance and other factors. High marginal tax claims decreased when the rate was increased which was my point in the ability for capital to move. They are not paying unusually low taxes by historical standards. Meaning, we have record highs of tax collections.
Because the top 0.1% own more than the bottom 50% combined.
And? Amazon is worth a lot of money that has no bearing on a poor persons house being worth 50k. Wealth is created and that means Amazon and the person who started it get really rich. That doesn't mean poor people have it worse because Amazon is successful or that somehow Amazon scammed the poor person.Using that as the basis to decide how healthy society is or if rich should pay more in taxes isn't convincing IMO. The 1% represent ~50% of tax revenue. You say that isn't enough because they own a lot compared to poor.
wealth and income inequality
Why does it matter if the rich are doing better if the poor are doing better as well? I don't find the argument of wealth inequality convincing when the poor in the US continually have better standards of living. Venezuela lowered their wealth inequality and everyone is poor except Maduro.
I could agree the poor and middle class could use some help but that doesn't mean tax the rich is the answer or that the rich are the problem. It sounds like class warfare type rhetoric.
It is much easier for capital to move around than in the 1950's. Even the SPLC moved millions to offshore tax havens. Money moves faster (hello bitcoin). Faster than a government can tax. Even if a government taxes more doesn't mean increase revenue. It's a great talking point to hear about when we had a higher tax rate but many things have changed since then but many things are still the same (raising taxes doesn't mean raising revenue).
Now when talking about taxes, what percentage should the 1% represent in government revenue? From that FreeBeacon link, "New York has the second highest combined state and local tax rate for high-income earners, and nearly half of the state's income tax revenue comes from the top 1 percent.". I think the same is true for federal taxes. The rich, right now, represent roughly half of all revenue for government. Why is that not enough? Taxing more doesn't solve problems like a magic bullet. The 1% do not face usually low tax burden by historical standards.
Also, the average tax paid for the top 1 percent in the 1950's was 42% not 90.
That's clear since your response ignores most of what I actually said and oversimplifies the issue to suit your argument.
I didn't make an argument. Yes I ignored most of your comment talking about how a large organization operates or speculation about Pai because I was asking about the underlying logic of the issue without having to wade through a diatribe about how Verizon chooses to organize even though that seems to be in vain. I thought saying "Not sure what your contention is. It isn't guaranteed unless you take control of a company. Nothing is guaranteed and we are not China." addresses your complaint of corporate organization. Yes, I agree that a company can choose to invest profits how and when they want. We are not China with direct command over the economy that force their will on business (exceptions apply).
As far as the resellers go, I thought that many are able to buy telco services at a wholesale or largely discounted price. What incentive is there for a telco to build if a reseller can undercut their profits in a given community?
In a nutshell your argument is comparable
I didn't make an argument. I questioned the logic that you dismissed and it makes sense to me and I don't understand your position beyond "big telco bad". So far your position seems to be " More money doesn't mean build out because corporations are big and they do cost benefit analysis before investing". Okay? I don't know where to go with that because it isn't my business how Verizon or any company chooses to organize. Nor do I have any idea what would be a solution for "more competition and infrastructure" because a basic premise in business is made moot (generally, increasing revenue increase investment). What conversation can be had? Even if I agree with you. Am I supposed to buy out Verizon and force a change? Advocate a new law banning certain organizational structures? Advocate for the FTC to break up Verizon because their organization and size are anti-competitive (Is 30% market share really anti-competitive position?)? Advocate command style economy like China? What is it that you're advocating? Even for TFA, what does that have to do with whether or not the FCC's attempt at removing a $25 subsidy to resellers a good thing or not and if it addressed the position you said Pai was trying to do (increase build-out to certain communities)?
The wireline division isn't going to build out infrastructure just for the sake of doing it, they are going to build out infrastructure when their own revenue and needs result in the belief they'd be more profitable doing it and only then.
Wow, they do a cost-benefit analysis before investing money because the point of "investment" is the return. I am shocked. Shocked I tell you!
I still have no idea what your position is beyond "big telco bad. Pai bad" and "increase profits != increase investment". I am at a total loss and even more so after reading your response.
A single entity isn't required to have a monopoly of force and in fact the government doesn't have a monopoly of force. What you said was factually wrong and I pointed it out.
Well which do you want to talk about the reason they did it or the justification they used to support their actions?
Both.
n this case the reason for the action is that Pai is a puppet for major telecom/broadband interests...
That sounds like an opinion. Did you have the same opinion for Wheeler since he was a telco lobbyist?
Their justification was an argument that more money to the telco would mean increasing build-out.
Is the inverse true? The less money a telco has the less they build out. Seems logical to me. If you want a telco to build infrastructure, how do you do it without government subsidy? Increasing sources of income for any company in any industry is generally the way you increase investments from that company. Not sure what your contention is. It isn't guaranteed unless you take control of a company. Nothing is guaranteed and we are not China.
They are required to sell services to third parties as well
Required to sell means that even if it isn't profitable. Why would a telco build infrastructure to a community if that community can buy from a reseller that can under sell the facilities based provider? There is no motivation to upgrade.
I am not understanding your position beyond "big telco bad. Pai bad".
I don't know. I didn't read their reasoning or justification because this isn't a case that interests me. I will go out on a limb and bet that it isn't "to be cruel to people".
You ascribe another position as "tries to be cruel to people" or "out of touch with reality". Have you actually tried to understand the different position? Or is you opinion based on what others say their position is?
It's one thing to understand a position and disagree. It's quite another to not even able to articulate the motivations or justifications beyond "They are evil that hate poor brown people!".
Do you really think the reason for this action from Pai/FCC was to "be cruel to people"? Did you actually read their reasoning for why they did this? Again, disagree is fine but FFS get their position and justification correct before you assign some moral judgement.
Or they just want to be actively cruel to anyone who just doesn't fully support and love them.
You can say this about democrats. Don't toe the line you're a racist sexist blah blah blah blah. Or you get assaulted for wearing a hat.
Um. I don't think you understand how to read laws or how they are applied if you reference a "purpose" to understand a definition. Nothing in that first section is a definition that will be used by the courts, regulators, or lawyers to understand the term "telecommunications". "Communication by wire and radio" doesn't tell you how or what. That first section is a statement of purpose. What is the intent of this law. If you notice in court proceedings they will muse about what the legislature was thinking and what their intent was with a law. It's better to publish that as part of the law to limit the courts interpretative power.
Going to the definitions section from your link with the updated version (1934 with 1996 changes). Sec. 3.43:
(43) TELECOMMUNICATIONS.--The term ''telecommunications'' means the transmission,between or among points specified by the user, of information of the user's choosing, without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received.
That is much more than just "communication by radio or wire". Particularly, the "without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received.". In laymen terms, broadcast (but broadcasting only applies to radio in the definitions).
However, just understanding the term telecommunications isn't the full story because, as we know, telecommunications are regulated by different subsections depending on their classification. With regards to NN and the idea to use "title 2" and "common carriers". The part that tickles the jimmies are Title 2 Sec 202.a
It shall be unlawful for any common carrier to make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations,facilities, or services for or in connection with like communication service, directly or indirectly, by any means or device, or to make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, class of persons, or locality, or to subject any particular person, class of persons, or locality to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage.
See no throttling. (which if they can't treat anyone differently would that mean that they couldn't give the Fire Fighters in the article a "free upgrade" during an emergency? I am sure there are exceptions for emergency though I just haven't seen it.)
Now, before anyone says "The law is clear! ISPs are telecommunication service providers and they must be regulated under Title 2!!". Internet Service Providers are not defined in the law. How they are classified is through the FCC and the courts and it's an argument going back and forth over whether they are "telecommunication service providers" or "Information service providers" and that is sometimes depends on how an ISP operates. Remember, Obama NN treated satellite ISPs different than DSL which were treated different than Cable ISPs. There have been multiple back and forth court opinions and FCC challenges that is the fundamental argument of why the law needs to change at the very least to define an ISP so the FCC can't change it's mind and the courts have a solid language to fall back on for their opinions. I can't be bothered to look up those court opinions and challenges right now, sorry. For reference, an information service definition.
The term ''information service'' means the offering of a capability for generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, retrieving, utilizing,or making available information via telecommunications, and includes electronic publishing,but does not include any use of any such capability for the management, control, or operation of a telecommunications system or the management of a telecommunications service.
The internet doesn't work by broadcast as every one here should understand the OSI model. ISPs are more than just a broadcast across a wire or radio wave. ISPs do many of those things listed in the definition of an information service.
I haven't listened to the linked 4 hour oral arguments ( I plan to ) and maybe they are making a different argument but please don't quote a purpose in trying to understand a legal definition.
To further expand on your comment, you can lie with facts. Lies by omission are the prime example. Omitting facts that disprove your narrative is telling lies.
When your goal is to push a narrative or ideology and facts become secondary then it doesn't matter which facts you cherry pick to support your ideological narrative.
Science has a mechanism to try and deal with that basic human behavior. Journalism does not. There is no self correcting mechanism in journalism to address the faults of "fake news". Making fine print corrections is not acting in good faith. If journalism had integrity they would work with exuberant fervor to ensure that their mistake is understood by everyone to be a mistake. They need to ensure that the Big Lie dies. Instead, we see too many journalists hiding behind the Big Lie to protect their narrative.
'The people' will continue to willing consume the new media products of their alleged enemy despite access to more alternative news than has ever existed
I look forward to more layoffs from outlets acting in bad faith. Just as I look forward to seeing those outlets defended and propped up with ideological tech companies banning simple phrases like "learn to code". I also look forward to those companies that are partially defined as 'public spaces' be given the same treatment as the physical town square.
We live in a world where "pew news" is watched by more people than the NYT.
Reading your comment it sounds like you don't understand what a journalist is and what the responsibilities of that title bring. Opinion is not journalism. If I need to explain that difference then this discussion is pointless. I never claimed to be a journalist and therefore do not adhere to any standard of professionalism in my writing. Everyone knows that if they read my comments that they are getting penandpaper's opinion and basic rules of argument and logic apply. No one cares what I think and I do not have the ear of millions. I cannot through my writing take our country to war, like in the Spanish American war propagandized by Yellow Journalism. If that is the kind of journalism you want then I weep for the future.
Journalists can speak their mind. No one is taking that away from them but when their "speak their mind" is masked behind "this is the facts because I am a journalist trust me" and they lie that harm people then there is a problem. When they don't even do basics of fact gathering and checking then there is a problem. When their reporting amounts to copy paste crap then it is not journalism. When they continueally get it wrong and have to make retractions then they are doing poor journalism. When they make retractions hardly noticeable then they are acting in bad faith.
I hope that the Covington kid sues the crap out of the "journalists" that slandered and libeled his name. I hope that some kind of integrity comes back to journalism. I hope you eventually understand that journalism has power and therefore responsibility. The media, by their actions, are causing harm and acting irresponsibly. A media that undermines the very basic ideal of "informing the general populous" are no friend to the people.
After Covington and Buzzfeed "bombshell" refuted by Mueller (but Buzzfeed stands behind their fake news!) the phrase "the media is the enemy of the people" takes on whole new meaning. A Republican calling the media out for their crap behavior has been decades in the making because of the media's partisanship and bullshit reporting.
Media and their defenders like to say that "without free and open news a democracy cannot survive" which is true. But the thing with that kind of power requires responsibility. Jim 'Dear Diary' Acosta love to parade their self importance but never accept the fact that activism is the anti-thesis of journalism. He is participating in activism not journalism. I haven't heard any acknowledgements from media about their activism, Twitter circle jerk, collusion, narrative reporting, etc.
Many, particularly on the left and in media, like to pretend that the disdain for media from the right is a recent thing since Trump. No. The bias and bullshit reporting has been going on for decades. Any time anyone doesn't toe the line they are banded and excised like cancer. Hello Howard 'Race Together' Schultz being dragged through the mud because how dare he have some kind of fiscal message! The message is Green New Deal, Open borders, Medicare for all, and end to private health insurance! As soon as they become irrelevant then they are A-Ok. Hello John 'Gook' McCain turned hero when he wasn't challenging democrats.
News media have a serious problem. Their problems have gotten worse since the rise in social media as "journalists" rely on google searches and social media bubbles instead of actual on the ground reporting. Those "journalists" have turned into a circle jerk of narratives, lies, and activism.
I use/. for more intellectual conversations particularly about unicode and emacs. I would dabble in systemd but I refrain from such childish discussions because my genius is better suited for character dissuasions.
Here I thought the standard operating procedure for modern journalism is to find 1 tweet that proves the point being made. If you find one tweet that's all you need. "Basically nothing" means it isn't nothing which means "Outrage across social media".
Same thing happened with the whole "Republicans hate dancing AOC video!!!" because of one tweet.
Slashdot Mirror
President Honorary Doctor
His title is God Emperor and he just conquered Italy.
I want to believe.
you are wrong on how marginal rates work.
How is it wrong to use an average to compare two different time periods with different marginal tax rates for the 1%?
I understand how marginal tax rates work. Perhaps you don't understand averages and effective tax rate. Using the highest tax bracket isn't useful in determining what the rich paid then and now. Nor does it help you understand what is a good tax rate or the behaviors that are associated with raising taxes (avoidance).
The poor aren't doing better.
I am not convinced by this. There has been stagnation but by nearly every measure the poor are doing fine or better. Even if I was convinced by it the problems that are facing the poor are not going to be solved by raising taxes. Raising taxes doesn't solve every problem. You can say that increased income inequality will lead to guillotines. I can say that raising taxes will lead to Yellow Vests. I am not sure you have a basis to predict any revolution in the US based on income inequality. If so you can tell me exactly what % of income equality will lead to revolution and when that threshold will be reached. I don't think it's that simple and I don't think income inequality is a good predictor of revolutions.
You are so removed from the people you are talking about that you have a fundamentally different experience in life. Which means you will not understand their problems
Projection much? You have no idea what my life is or has been.
I am not going to respond to everything because it is too crazy (wealth is taken!!!! Tell that to Amazon the next time you choose to use their service) or you didn't read my comment or the article.
not let it concentrate at the top to stay.
Sure. That alone doesn't convince me that we need to raise taxes. It's a platitude that has no insight on proper tax levels or justification on why current levels are not "fair".
Yeah. I want the "words will never hurt men" back in schools.
And? See my other comment.
marginal tax
I quoted an average. Because as the article pointed out that few people do pay the top marginal rate because of avoidance and other factors. High marginal tax claims decreased when the rate was increased which was my point in the ability for capital to move. They are not paying unusually low taxes by historical standards. Meaning, we have record highs of tax collections.
Because the top 0.1% own more than the bottom 50% combined.
And? Amazon is worth a lot of money that has no bearing on a poor persons house being worth 50k. Wealth is created and that means Amazon and the person who started it get really rich. That doesn't mean poor people have it worse because Amazon is successful or that somehow Amazon scammed the poor person.Using that as the basis to decide how healthy society is or if rich should pay more in taxes isn't convincing IMO. The 1% represent ~50% of tax revenue. You say that isn't enough because they own a lot compared to poor.
wealth and income inequality
Why does it matter if the rich are doing better if the poor are doing better as well? I don't find the argument of wealth inequality convincing when the poor in the US continually have better standards of living. Venezuela lowered their wealth inequality and everyone is poor except Maduro.
I could agree the poor and middle class could use some help but that doesn't mean tax the rich is the answer or that the rich are the problem. It sounds like class warfare type rhetoric.
Speech is violence is a discredited trope and an excuse used to try to justify censorship.
And violence. If words are a form of aggression then it is acceptable to respond with aggression and force to stop aggressive people.
It really is a damning line of reasoning that is used to abuse innocent people for wrong think. It's kind of scary how quickly and popular it became.
You mean like the 1950s?
It is much easier for capital to move around than in the 1950's. Even the SPLC moved millions to offshore tax havens. Money moves faster (hello bitcoin). Faster than a government can tax. Even if a government taxes more doesn't mean increase revenue. It's a great talking point to hear about when we had a higher tax rate but many things have changed since then but many things are still the same (raising taxes doesn't mean raising revenue).
Now when talking about taxes, what percentage should the 1% represent in government revenue? From that FreeBeacon link, "New York has the second highest combined state and local tax rate for high-income earners, and nearly half of the state's income tax revenue comes from the top 1 percent.". I think the same is true for federal taxes. The rich, right now, represent roughly half of all revenue for government. Why is that not enough? Taxing more doesn't solve problems like a magic bullet. The 1% do not face usually low tax burden by historical standards.
Also, the average tax paid for the top 1 percent in the 1950's was 42% not 90.
I didn't leave the left. It left me.
That's clear since your response ignores most of what I actually said and oversimplifies the issue to suit your argument.
I didn't make an argument. Yes I ignored most of your comment talking about how a large organization operates or speculation about Pai because I was asking about the underlying logic of the issue without having to wade through a diatribe about how Verizon chooses to organize even though that seems to be in vain. I thought saying "Not sure what your contention is. It isn't guaranteed unless you take control of a company. Nothing is guaranteed and we are not China." addresses your complaint of corporate organization. Yes, I agree that a company can choose to invest profits how and when they want. We are not China with direct command over the economy that force their will on business (exceptions apply).
As far as the resellers go, I thought that many are able to buy telco services at a wholesale or largely discounted price. What incentive is there for a telco to build if a reseller can undercut their profits in a given community?
In a nutshell your argument is comparable
I didn't make an argument. I questioned the logic that you dismissed and it makes sense to me and I don't understand your position beyond "big telco bad". So far your position seems to be " More money doesn't mean build out because corporations are big and they do cost benefit analysis before investing". Okay? I don't know where to go with that because it isn't my business how Verizon or any company chooses to organize. Nor do I have any idea what would be a solution for "more competition and infrastructure" because a basic premise in business is made moot (generally, increasing revenue increase investment). What conversation can be had? Even if I agree with you. Am I supposed to buy out Verizon and force a change? Advocate a new law banning certain organizational structures? Advocate for the FTC to break up Verizon because their organization and size are anti-competitive (Is 30% market share really anti-competitive position?)? Advocate command style economy like China? What is it that you're advocating? Even for TFA, what does that have to do with whether or not the FCC's attempt at removing a $25 subsidy to resellers a good thing or not and if it addressed the position you said Pai was trying to do (increase build-out to certain communities)?
The wireline division isn't going to build out infrastructure just for the sake of doing it, they are going to build out infrastructure when their own revenue and needs result in the belief they'd be more profitable doing it and only then.
Wow, they do a cost-benefit analysis before investing money because the point of "investment" is the return. I am shocked. Shocked I tell you!
I still have no idea what your position is beyond "big telco bad. Pai bad" and "increase profits != increase investment". I am at a total loss and even more so after reading your response.
A single entity isn't required to have a monopoly of force and in fact the government doesn't have a monopoly of force. What you said was factually wrong and I pointed it out.
Well which do you want to talk about the reason they did it or the justification they used to support their actions?
Both.
n this case the reason for the action is that Pai is a puppet for major telecom/broadband interests ...
That sounds like an opinion. Did you have the same opinion for Wheeler since he was a telco lobbyist?
Their justification was an argument that more money to the telco would mean increasing build-out.
Is the inverse true? The less money a telco has the less they build out. Seems logical to me. If you want a telco to build infrastructure, how do you do it without government subsidy? Increasing sources of income for any company in any industry is generally the way you increase investments from that company. Not sure what your contention is. It isn't guaranteed unless you take control of a company. Nothing is guaranteed and we are not China.
They are required to sell services to third parties as well
Required to sell means that even if it isn't profitable. Why would a telco build infrastructure to a community if that community can buy from a reseller that can under sell the facilities based provider? There is no motivation to upgrade.
I am not understanding your position beyond "big telco bad. Pai bad".
I don't know. I didn't read their reasoning or justification because this isn't a case that interests me. I will go out on a limb and bet that it isn't "to be cruel to people".
Reading your comment, I am reminded of a Haidt looking into basically "liberals do not understand conservative positions".
You ascribe another position as "tries to be cruel to people" or "out of touch with reality". Have you actually tried to understand the different position? Or is you opinion based on what others say their position is?
It's one thing to understand a position and disagree. It's quite another to not even able to articulate the motivations or justifications beyond "They are evil that hate poor brown people!".
Do you really think the reason for this action from Pai/FCC was to "be cruel to people"? Did you actually read their reasoning for why they did this? Again, disagree is fine but FFS get their position and justification correct before you assign some moral judgement.
Or they just want to be actively cruel to anyone who just doesn't fully support and love them.
You can say this about democrats. Don't toe the line you're a racist sexist blah blah blah blah. Or you get assaulted for wearing a hat.
have a monopoly on the use of force
The government has a monopoly on premeditated force. I can act with legal force for defense as an example.
Um. I don't think you understand how to read laws or how they are applied if you reference a "purpose" to understand a definition. Nothing in that first section is a definition that will be used by the courts, regulators, or lawyers to understand the term "telecommunications". "Communication by wire and radio" doesn't tell you how or what. That first section is a statement of purpose. What is the intent of this law. If you notice in court proceedings they will muse about what the legislature was thinking and what their intent was with a law. It's better to publish that as part of the law to limit the courts interpretative power.
Going to the definitions section from your link with the updated version (1934 with 1996 changes).
Sec. 3.43:
(43) TELECOMMUNICATIONS.--The term ''telecommunications'' means the transmission,between or among points specified by the user, of information of the user's choosing, without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received.
That is much more than just "communication by radio or wire". Particularly, the "without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received.". In laymen terms, broadcast (but broadcasting only applies to radio in the definitions).
However, just understanding the term telecommunications isn't the full story because, as we know, telecommunications are regulated by different subsections depending on their classification. With regards to NN and the idea to use "title 2" and "common carriers". The part that tickles the jimmies are Title 2 Sec 202.a
It shall be unlawful for any common carrier to make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations,facilities, or services for or in connection with like communication service, directly or indirectly, by any means or device, or to make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, class of persons, or locality, or to subject any particular person, class of persons, or locality to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage.
See no throttling. (which if they can't treat anyone differently would that mean that they couldn't give the Fire Fighters in the article a "free upgrade" during an emergency? I am sure there are exceptions for emergency though I just haven't seen it.)
Now, before anyone says "The law is clear! ISPs are telecommunication service providers and they must be regulated under Title 2!!". Internet Service Providers are not defined in the law. How they are classified is through the FCC and the courts and it's an argument going back and forth over whether they are "telecommunication service providers" or "Information service providers" and that is sometimes depends on how an ISP operates. Remember, Obama NN treated satellite ISPs different than DSL which were treated different than Cable ISPs. There have been multiple back and forth court opinions and FCC challenges that is the fundamental argument of why the law needs to change at the very least to define an ISP so the FCC can't change it's mind and the courts have a solid language to fall back on for their opinions. I can't be bothered to look up those court opinions and challenges right now, sorry. For reference, an information service definition.
The term ''information service'' means the offering of a capability for generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, retrieving, utilizing,or making available information via telecommunications, and includes electronic publishing,but does not include any use of any such capability for the management, control, or operation of a telecommunications system or the management of a telecommunications service.
The internet doesn't work by broadcast as every one here should understand the OSI model. ISPs are more than just a broadcast across a wire or radio wave. ISPs do many of those things listed in the definition of an information service.
I haven't listened to the linked 4 hour oral arguments ( I plan to ) and maybe they are making a different argument but please don't quote a purpose in trying to understand a legal definition.
To further expand on your comment, you can lie with facts. Lies by omission are the prime example. Omitting facts that disprove your narrative is telling lies.
When your goal is to push a narrative or ideology and facts become secondary then it doesn't matter which facts you cherry pick to support your ideological narrative.
Science has a mechanism to try and deal with that basic human behavior. Journalism does not. There is no self correcting mechanism in journalism to address the faults of "fake news". Making fine print corrections is not acting in good faith. If journalism had integrity they would work with exuberant fervor to ensure that their mistake is understood by everyone to be a mistake. They need to ensure that the Big Lie dies. Instead, we see too many journalists hiding behind the Big Lie to protect their narrative.
'The people' will continue to willing consume the new media products of their alleged enemy despite access to more alternative news than has ever existed
I look forward to more layoffs from outlets acting in bad faith. Just as I look forward to seeing those outlets defended and propped up with ideological tech companies banning simple phrases like "learn to code". I also look forward to those companies that are partially defined as 'public spaces' be given the same treatment as the physical town square.
We live in a world where "pew news" is watched by more people than the NYT.
Reading your comment it sounds like you don't understand what a journalist is and what the responsibilities of that title bring. Opinion is not journalism. If I need to explain that difference then this discussion is pointless. I never claimed to be a journalist and therefore do not adhere to any standard of professionalism in my writing. Everyone knows that if they read my comments that they are getting penandpaper's opinion and basic rules of argument and logic apply. No one cares what I think and I do not have the ear of millions. I cannot through my writing take our country to war, like in the Spanish American war propagandized by Yellow Journalism. If that is the kind of journalism you want then I weep for the future.
Journalists can speak their mind. No one is taking that away from them but when their "speak their mind" is masked behind "this is the facts because I am a journalist trust me" and they lie that harm people then there is a problem. When they don't even do basics of fact gathering and checking then there is a problem. When their reporting amounts to copy paste crap then it is not journalism. When they continueally get it wrong and have to make retractions then they are doing poor journalism. When they make retractions hardly noticeable then they are acting in bad faith.
I hope that the Covington kid sues the crap out of the "journalists" that slandered and libeled his name. I hope that some kind of integrity comes back to journalism. I hope you eventually understand that journalism has power and therefore responsibility. The media, by their actions, are causing harm and acting irresponsibly. A media that undermines the very basic ideal of "informing the general populous" are no friend to the people.
After Covington and Buzzfeed "bombshell" refuted by Mueller (but Buzzfeed stands behind their fake news!) the phrase "the media is the enemy of the people" takes on whole new meaning. A Republican calling the media out for their crap behavior has been decades in the making because of the media's partisanship and bullshit reporting.
Media and their defenders like to say that "without free and open news a democracy cannot survive" which is true. But the thing with that kind of power requires responsibility. Jim 'Dear Diary' Acosta love to parade their self importance but never accept the fact that activism is the anti-thesis of journalism. He is participating in activism not journalism. I haven't heard any acknowledgements from media about their activism, Twitter circle jerk, collusion, narrative reporting, etc.
Many, particularly on the left and in media, like to pretend that the disdain for media from the right is a recent thing since Trump. No. The bias and bullshit reporting has been going on for decades. Any time anyone doesn't toe the line they are banded and excised like cancer. Hello Howard 'Race Together' Schultz being dragged through the mud because how dare he have some kind of fiscal message! The message is Green New Deal, Open borders, Medicare for all, and end to private health insurance! As soon as they become irrelevant then they are A-Ok. Hello John 'Gook' McCain turned hero when he wasn't challenging democrats.
News media have a serious problem. Their problems have gotten worse since the rise in social media as "journalists" rely on google searches and social media bubbles instead of actual on the ground reporting. Those "journalists" have turned into a circle jerk of narratives, lies, and activism.
Not soon enough.
But people survive.
I died a little on the inside which is just like 100 911's.
Haha! Charade you are! I am Trump.
I use /. for more intellectual conversations particularly about unicode and emacs. I would dabble in systemd but I refrain from such childish discussions because my genius is better suited for character dissuasions.
Here I thought the standard operating procedure for modern journalism is to find 1 tweet that proves the point being made. If you find one tweet that's all you need. "Basically nothing" means it isn't nothing which means "Outrage across social media".
Same thing happened with the whole "Republicans hate dancing AOC video!!!" because of one tweet.