... Needless to say, if you have to name your organization "Trusted (tm)" anything, you probably aren't very trustworthy. The allegations here are astonishing. Wondering what HN thinks about this
I think it would be a mistake to assume we support this lawsuit. I am sure on the face of it (ie, seeing one side of the argument) many of us do. But, there will be another side, and there will be other (amicus?) sides to this.
News is important. Too important to allow The Moonies to own a newspaper and publish fantasy lies, Too important to platform Tucker Carlson, on some memetic 1st amendment basis. Oh, sure, mature adults can discriminate and choose. Thats chaos theory writ large. "do what you want shall be the whole of the law" is a Crowley excuse to have lots of sex, do drugs, and sponge off society at large.
Not to mention jurisdictional issues. They're complaining about the BBC in a US court.
It's an interesting read of course. I'm glad it was posted here. But, I think its too early to say which side of this has merit, What a US court will do, what "people" think about this. Ask again in a few weeks.
For what it's worth, it's probably a mistake to paint HN as a monoculture capable of supporting or opposing something as a whole. Granted, my stated intention was to get a view of what HN thinks so I'm also guilty of this if one assumes I'm preparing to take said view as a representation of HN as a whole
> News is important. Too important to allow The Moonies to own a newspaper and publish fantasy lies, Too important to platform Tucker Carlson, on some memetic 1st amendment basis.
Are you suggesting the Government stifle the speech of people you disagree with?
> "While the 'Trusted News Initiative' publicly purports to be a self-appointed 'truth police' extirpating online 'misinformation,' in fact it has suppressed wholly accurate and legitimate reporting in furtherance of the economic self-interest of its members," the suit alleges.
In this case, the article gives no specific examples, and doesn't verify the claims - that accurate reporting has been suppressed is left as a mere allegation that the article's author doesn't feel worth confirming.
> Kennedy, 68, whose father Bobby was assassinated in 1968 while campaigning for the Democratic presidential nomination, became a face of the anti-vaccine movement after promoting the medically discredited theory that vaccines cause autism.
But when it comes to what Kennedy got wrong, it manages to come up with specifics, and uses its authoritative voice to confirm Kennedy was indeed wrong - "the medically discredited theory", not "theory said to be discredited".
The trick is common: Leave statements you dislike as mere allegations (even if trivial to verify), the vaguer the better, but confirm and elaborate on statements you do like. That way you get a "he said but the facts are" article that pretends to be objective, but has pretty much decided for its readers who they should believe. It stands out in this article because its vaguer on the presumed subject, i.e. the lawsuit, but specific on Kennedy's background, which is tangential.
