| spurgeonryan said: So....most comedy news would do what? just be on hiatus? |
The bill would have to be so large and so in depth to properly cover everything, or it would have to be way to intrusive and lock down everything. If it's not specific enough, people who don't know the exact rules and get penalized, will get extremely upset, especially if it effects their job or business.
palou said:
That's a good thing, definitely. |
It's not bad per say, but it would be a huge pain in the butt for any type of media. The problem is it could easily be bypassed though. All you have to do is get someone else to do the transaction for you, or if your a business, just start another sub/side/separate company with a completely unrelated name and nobody is the wiser, unless they do the research, which they aren't doing now anyway. Even if the bill says the top source has to be named, all they have to do is create 10 maybe 20 different sub sources and transfer the money/info from top to bottom. Having to spit that list out every single time will anger the media and will really anger the viewers to a level that they may just stop watching altogether, which would also hurt the non "fake news".
| collint0101 said: If they're bipartisan about it then I'm honestly ok with this. While I can't speak for French politics in America there's no way we would be able to stop the spread of fake news in a non biased fashion even though we would literally be talking about factual statements vs opinions and misinformation |
Well knowing how fair they will be is something you won't find out until it's potentially too late, if they decide to use it to their political advantage. Just imagine if Trump announced he was going to do the same thing. A lot of Americans would go bonkers, assuming the worst of course, and even if the 'fake news' was handled properly and responsibly, if Trump won again, it would be spun against him like he used it to his advantage.
|
Aeolus451 said: Sounds like something a state inching closer to totalitarianism would do. "Fake News" is very subjective and a censoring campaign against it could be applied to anything the ruling party doesn't like. |
| DarthMetalliCube said: I dunno, maybe it's my Libertarian nature coming out, but I find this creepily Authoritarian. Like, who the fuck decides what fake news is and what's real? How? Doesn't most if not all news come with some sort of bias, and thus can be precieved as "fake?" |
Putting a cap on the amount of money for sponsored content is also quite scary. What content exactly? Only for 'fake news'? If it's for both 'fake news' and non 'fake news', then what's the difference? The fact that Macron specifically said “If we want to protect liberal democracies, we must be strong and have clear rules,” just shows he isn't being honest already. Imagine if Macron said something like because there are more vehicle accidents on Tuesday's in France let's say, that every Tuesday from now on, the speed limit will be half of what it is now, plus there are more accidents immediately after the opening days of movies about cars, so on those days the speed limit is cut in half as well, and if you get caught speeding during these times, you lose your license. Can you imagine how horribly that would go over? The big difference here is that most people agree on things like the speed limits as they stand and that's due to scientific research and making the car and part companies accountable for their performance. People will not be ok with being told what they can and can not say, and listen to or view, especially when the definition of fact,truth,fake,news,etc, isn't all that clear to the people and is bent and broken constantly by the journalists and media corps they work for, who are free to do and say whatever they please without being held accountable. Since when did freedom of the press become more important than freedom of the people? The point of the press being free is so that the people remain free, not to slowly enslave the people.
