@imperfectsense.bsky.social
Ad hominem now? I thought BlueSky was different.
January 25, 2026 at 10:55 PM
Ad hominem now? I thought BlueSky was different.
Why would they have to platform climate change deniers? Scientifically, climate change is not in controversy. Again, you are creating these dire consequences and yet... even under the "bad old" Fairness Doctrine, the media wasn't platforming the Soviets or the KKK or anything like that.
January 25, 2026 at 10:53 PM
Why would they have to platform climate change deniers? Scientifically, climate change is not in controversy. Again, you are creating these dire consequences and yet... even under the "bad old" Fairness Doctrine, the media wasn't platforming the Soviets or the KKK or anything like that.
Did the media have to platform the KKK under the original Fairness Doctrine? No, of course they didn't. Stop making up false equivalencies.
January 25, 2026 at 10:46 PM
Did the media have to platform the KKK under the original Fairness Doctrine? No, of course they didn't. Stop making up false equivalencies.
I didn't say post, I said implementation. Maybe stop misquoting me. Bigger fish to fry today.
January 25, 2026 at 10:44 PM
I didn't say post, I said implementation. Maybe stop misquoting me. Bigger fish to fry today.
But again, we're not talking about an individual. This wouldn't force Newscaster A, who is a liberal, to give conservative talking points. You could just have a conservative give conservative talking points. As long as it's on the same broadcast/show/airing however you structure it.
January 25, 2026 at 10:41 PM
But again, we're not talking about an individual. This wouldn't force Newscaster A, who is a liberal, to give conservative talking points. You could just have a conservative give conservative talking points. As long as it's on the same broadcast/show/airing however you structure it.
You're so fixated on what you perceive was wrong or faulty in the original implementation that you aren't open to seeing the value in the concept, and how that _could_ work. I donno about you, but I think both our energy is better directed elsewhere than at each other. Have a good one.
January 25, 2026 at 10:11 PM
You're so fixated on what you perceive was wrong or faulty in the original implementation that you aren't open to seeing the value in the concept, and how that _could_ work. I donno about you, but I think both our energy is better directed elsewhere than at each other. Have a good one.
"The rights of viewers to receive balanced information outweighed the rights of broadcasters." <-- I don't disagree with this sentiment. Do you? It doesn't have to trample on any _individual's_ 1A rights. It only requires some degree of balance in the broadcast as a whole. What's the problem?
January 25, 2026 at 9:19 PM
"The rights of viewers to receive balanced information outweighed the rights of broadcasters." <-- I don't disagree with this sentiment. Do you? It doesn't have to trample on any _individual's_ 1A rights. It only requires some degree of balance in the broadcast as a whole. What's the problem?
Yes, I'd like to have legislation back that requires some set of news media to be required to be "fair and balanced" and/or give at least some airtime to both sides of an issue, and that would give we the people the ability to sue for blatantly biased coverage. What do you think will solve this?
January 25, 2026 at 9:15 PM
Yes, I'd like to have legislation back that requires some set of news media to be required to be "fair and balanced" and/or give at least some airtime to both sides of an issue, and that would give we the people the ability to sue for blatantly biased coverage. What do you think will solve this?
I was interpreting "news media" as broadcast TV news channels. Simple miscommunication due to character limits and undefined terms. I get you're upset today, everyone's upset today. How about channeling that to put forward an actual solution to the world's problems?
January 25, 2026 at 9:13 PM
I was interpreting "news media" as broadcast TV news channels. Simple miscommunication due to character limits and undefined terms. I get you're upset today, everyone's upset today. How about channeling that to put forward an actual solution to the world's problems?
Society has decided to place nuanced limits on the 2nd Amendment. There is nothing stopping doing the same on the 1st. Only a lack of ideas/imagination/desire.
January 25, 2026 at 8:02 PM
Society has decided to place nuanced limits on the 2nd Amendment. There is nothing stopping doing the same on the 1st. Only a lack of ideas/imagination/desire.
No aspect of our government was written by God on stone tablets. It was written by us. It can be changed by us. Tweaked by us. Where it makes sense. Where it is for the greater good. Intelligently. Carefully. But it's not impossible. Stop finding problems and start helping make solutions.
January 25, 2026 at 7:59 PM
No aspect of our government was written by God on stone tablets. It was written by us. It can be changed by us. Tweaked by us. Where it makes sense. Where it is for the greater good. Intelligently. Carefully. But it's not impossible. Stop finding problems and start helping make solutions.
I realize you "make content" by trying to make people look stupid, but I never claimed that just bringing the FD back as it was is the answer. What I _do_ think is a big part of the answer is finding a way to ensure fair and balanced content on the news. Full stop.
January 25, 2026 at 7:49 PM
I realize you "make content" by trying to make people look stupid, but I never claimed that just bringing the FD back as it was is the answer. What I _do_ think is a big part of the answer is finding a way to ensure fair and balanced content on the news. Full stop.
Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu, etc do not have an FCC license. And yet for many people those services have completely replaced cable TV. If the Fairness Doctrine came back just the way it was, FOX News could just move to streaming only and avoid it entirely.
January 25, 2026 at 7:21 PM
Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu, etc do not have an FCC license. And yet for many people those services have completely replaced cable TV. If the Fairness Doctrine came back just the way it was, FOX News could just move to streaming only and avoid it entirely.
Ummm... source? Because it absolutely did.... like... that was the entire whole point of it....
January 25, 2026 at 7:18 PM
Ummm... source? Because it absolutely did.... like... that was the entire whole point of it....
But "news media" don't need to broadcast on TV or radio anymore. They can become a pure streaming platform. Like Netflix. That was my point. The "Fairness Doctrine" as it existed would be helpless today in the face of a FOX News Streaming Service.
January 24, 2026 at 11:36 PM
But "news media" don't need to broadcast on TV or radio anymore. They can become a pure streaming platform. Like Netflix. That was my point. The "Fairness Doctrine" as it existed would be helpless today in the face of a FOX News Streaming Service.
I mean the REAL issue is, now that broadcasters no longer need a government license or access to a limited resource like a broadcast frequency or channel, how do you enforce it. But if society sees and accepts the need for such rules, then finding a framework is not insurmountable.
January 24, 2026 at 10:05 PM
I mean the REAL issue is, now that broadcasters no longer need a government license or access to a limited resource like a broadcast frequency or channel, how do you enforce it. But if society sees and accepts the need for such rules, then finding a framework is not insurmountable.
The Fairness Doctrine (introduced in 1949) was revoked in 1987. It required that US news media present both sides of (or balanced viewpoints of) controversial issues. It wouldn't fix everything. But it would help a lot, I think, to have it back.
January 24, 2026 at 9:56 PM
The Fairness Doctrine (introduced in 1949) was revoked in 1987. It required that US news media present both sides of (or balanced viewpoints of) controversial issues. It wouldn't fix everything. But it would help a lot, I think, to have it back.
Those are fake AI videos btw.
January 13, 2026 at 4:27 AM
Those are fake AI videos btw.
Look, I am NO Trump supporter in any way, shape or form. Not even a tiny bit. But I do believe that we should choose our battles, and not invent ones that don't exist (yet). This is the same data from the same source, but since 2000. There has not (yet) been a major drop due to Trump.
December 17, 2025 at 8:10 AM
Look, I am NO Trump supporter in any way, shape or form. Not even a tiny bit. But I do believe that we should choose our battles, and not invent ones that don't exist (yet). This is the same data from the same source, but since 2000. There has not (yet) been a major drop due to Trump.
I'm not responding to the lawyers, I'm responding to YOU characterizing it as "botched" by the cops. Which it isn't. You're welcome for the education on what the cops legal obligations under Miranda actually are.
December 5, 2025 at 5:43 PM
I'm not responding to the lawyers, I'm responding to YOU characterizing it as "botched" by the cops. Which it isn't. You're welcome for the education on what the cops legal obligations under Miranda actually are.
It was 1966. The case of Miranda v. Arizona. “The prosecution may not use statements(...) stemming from custodial interrogation(...) unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination.” Then they define custodial interrogation.
December 5, 2025 at 4:34 PM
It was 1966. The case of Miranda v. Arizona. “The prosecution may not use statements(...) stemming from custodial interrogation(...) unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination.” Then they define custodial interrogation.
They didn't botch anything. You only have to be read your rights if you are being questioned _in custody_. Prior to being detained or arrested, you are free to answer, or not answer, but the cops don't have any obligation to remind you of your rights.
December 5, 2025 at 8:15 AM
They didn't botch anything. You only have to be read your rights if you are being questioned _in custody_. Prior to being detained or arrested, you are free to answer, or not answer, but the cops don't have any obligation to remind you of your rights.
No, it doesn't imply that at all. Please stop trying to DIVIDE the people who AGREE with you that this was a Bad Thing that happened. Honestly, this addiction to being more right than the next person is a disease our society could do without.
April 8, 2025 at 5:42 AM
No, it doesn't imply that at all. Please stop trying to DIVIDE the people who AGREE with you that this was a Bad Thing that happened. Honestly, this addiction to being more right than the next person is a disease our society could do without.