You’re right on the technical points, but you’re completely missing the larger reality, which is corporate and media consolidation. There are a lot of business interests that include some subsidiaries that are subject to the FCC’s regulation, and other subsidiaries that are not. The point is, members of this administration are exerting extortionate pressures that don’t happen in a vacuum.
Often called “zombie bills”… Georgia Republicans do it all the time.
I locked this it’s post because it’s a duplicate submission and so that comments and replies can be consolidated in a single thread. (This submission had less activity than the other post.)
Appreciate the effort!
I saw someone reported this post for changing the title of the article. Nevertheless, in this case, the post title that was used appears to be more objective, more informative, less of a clickbait title than the original, and the author of the post was upfront about this modification from the outset, so I’m going to let it stand.
(Go to 4:28.)
I just updated my comment, to reflect another conversation about that Substack, and the short of it is: that Substack post is misinformation.
I know it probably wasn’t your intent, but In the future though, please don’t use a “shell” article to post other content.
NOTE: This article is from more than 7 months ago.
Edit: I’m on my phone, so forgive any formatting snafus, but I just recently responded to a question about why that Substack post was removed for, and I think it is applicable here.
I’m a mod on c/politics. I don’t speak for any of the other mods, and while I don’t recall interacting with your specific post, I’ll give you two reasons today that would likely be sufficient to me, for why I would have removed that post. (1) It’s an article to a Substack post, which isn’t necessarily dispositive, but the author is unknown (at least to me), which is a ding against its credibility. (2) I don’t know enough about the author’s intent to know whether to characterize the article as mis- or dis-information, but I’ve been involved in elections for more than a decade, so I know that I can say — unequivocally — that the information the author is spewing, is incorrect. Specifically, the author demonstrates ignorance of the technology and logistics involved in the administration of elections, along with different methods of verification.
And just to be clear, the 2024 election was not perfect and there was institutionalized voter suppression; however, that Substack post is not rooted in fact.
The response I got from that post was (the other person quoting me):
I’ve been involved in elections for more than a decade, so I know that I can say — unequivocally — that the information the author is spewing, is incorrect.
This seems to be stating that we must accept what you say at face value without evidence. (End of the other person’s quote.)
To which I responded, and I would say is just as applicable here:
Okay, well here are some facts that you can confirm with anyone else who has been involved in election administration that support my point:
Those are three things undermining the article’s credibility that you can confirm for yourself. It’s spewing the same kind of bullshit theories that I heard about the 2020 election, and spent the years since, fighting. I didn’t like the outcome of the 2024 election either, but I know what I’m talking about.
Good point and totally agree!
I don’t know what the original title was, but it looks like they’ve fixed it, so I’m going to dismiss the report.
I’m not disagreeing with the fact that the Democratic Party shouldn’t be cozying up with billionaires, but I’m not convinced that the most significant reason for the Harris’ loss. I think misogyny played a role.
I think Democrats don’t know how to create a zeitgeist of high-brow, uplifting pugnacity that punches through bullshit. “Oh you think ‘boys’ should be able to play in women’s sports?” “It’s a game!” “You sound pretty privileged to not have to think about scholarships for students to go to college!” “Shut the fuck up about peoples’ genitals, and let’s do something about people going to school. Let’s prepare children for the real world in school while they’re growing up, and if they want to go off to college after that, let’s make that affordable.”
The “Green New Deal” — do want to grow the economy with new industries? Do you know how much more expensive living with the consequences of climate change will be — do you like the cost of housing now?
“Poor people should have to work to receive help.” — (1) They already do, and (2) shut the fuck up and stop calling yourself a Christian unless you want to at least pretend to know the tenets of your religion. You would have been whipped in the temple.
Stop giving Republicans so many opportunities to go on bullshitting without checking them. That won’t immediately manifest the world we want to see, but it will at least shift the momentum.
… and cue the facial Equal Protection problems.
They’ll ask to have it “sent it back to the states.”
I guess my idea was that locking the comment thread wouldn’t censor the viewpoints, and everyone could still read the differing views while tamping down on toxicity.
If a conversation isn’t productive and people are just becoming mean and ugly toward each other, then all we’re left with is people being mean and ugly toward each other. That doesn’t promote community, it creates rage bait. And not that it necessarily means a conversation can’t be productive, I would assume — although maybe incorrectly — that the reason people are on Lemmy is because they’ve seen what happens when rage is monetized on social media platforms, and they came here to get away from that.
Mod here: We’ve received several reports from this comment thread. If I had the power to lock just this thread, I would because I can see how this conversation has some seeds for productive discourse, but that doesn’t seem to be the direction that things are headed toward right now.
I would encourage people to reread what each other has said, and rather than immediately thinking of a rebuttal, read it a second or third time until you can interpret what the other person said a different way than you initially read it.
You’re using different words to repeat yourself without actually addressing the flaw in your argument: it misses the larger picture.