Warlord Posted January 3 Report Share Posted January 3 If so check out this campaign: Defund the BBC https://www.defundbbc.uk/ I have donated a few times.. just a tenner or whatever will help promote the cause. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Riedquat Posted January 4 Report Share Posted January 4 No I don't. But I would like to see it get its act together. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
PeanutButter Posted January 4 Report Share Posted January 4 Slimline BBC with a focus on BBCWW revenue - no problem. David Attenborough still gets an unlimited budget. Big flush button on 2/3 of the management. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
zugzwang Posted January 4 Report Share Posted January 4 If so check out this campaign: Defund the BBC https://www.defundbbc.uk/ I have donated a few times.. just a tenner or whatever will help promote the cause. Just a tenner? You threw hundreds away betting on Trump! Make it a grand or you're not serious. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Warlord Posted January 4 Author Report Share Posted January 4 Just a tenner? You threw hundreds away betting on Trump! Make it a grand or you're not serious. err no... I lost £75 on Trump to win AZ and GA. Not my finest hour. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DiggerUK Posted January 4 Report Share Posted January 4 The government should franchise off the BBC. The monies raised should then be used to roll out high speed cable, broadband and digital communications. That would mean anybody could publish easily and cheaply. A free media defends a free citizen..._ Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Timm Posted January 4 Report Share Posted January 4 The government should franchise off the BBC. The monies raised should then be used to roll out high speed cable, broadband and digital communications. That would mean anybody could publish easily and cheaply. A free media defends a free citizen..._ Seems to work well on FB, twitter and youtube... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DiggerUK Posted January 4 Report Share Posted January 4 Seems to work well on FB, twitter and youtube... If you are referring to the widespread censoring of 'unclean' thoughts on those mediums, then I'd like to know why you think it works well..._ Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Timm Posted January 4 Report Share Posted January 4 If you are referring to the widespread censoring of 'unclean' thoughts on those mediums, then I'd like to know why you think it works well..._ On the contrary, I was referring to the use of such platforms to spread disinformation. (It was sarcasm) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DiggerUK Posted January 4 Report Share Posted January 4 On the contrary, I was referring to the use of such platforms to spread disinformation. Who has the right to decide what is and isn't disinformation. It should not be up to private businesses, or indeed the state, to decide what we can or can't read, view or discuss, that is the right of freeborn citizens..._ Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Timm Posted January 4 Report Share Posted January 4 Who has the right to decide what is and isn't disinformation. It should not be up to private businesses, or indeed the state, to decide what we can or can't read, view or discuss, that is the right of freeborn citizens..._ Those that disseminate disinformation know that it is false. In an ideal world they should be free to do so, but should face judgement and censure from other actors that have similar agency. The BBC has enormous financial clout and influence, but it also has a huge amount to lose if they lose collective trust. So there is a balance of sorts in that case. To some extent, this also applies to the other great media franchises. Timm, DiggerUK and Warlord have very little to lose. As individuals on a forum, we also have very little power. But similar individuals and bots, assembled en-mass by powerful and wealthy entities do have the power to shift the apparent social consensus, particularly on social media, and a mass of paid for and coordinated actors (whether real or not) not only have power that they can wield on behalf of their masters, they can also act as a shield for those masters, protecting them from due censure and judgement. Because of the above (and to return to your point), the publisher (and yes I do mean the social platforms) need to be held to account as a proxy. If they decide someone is posting harmful lies, then they need to shut that someone down. If that someone wants to continue, they need to talk to their friends and family, stand on a soap box at HPC (Hyde Park Corner!!) or get a sandwich board. The right to free speech is one thing, but the right to amass armies of bots and paid for posters to flood the internet with lies and poison is quite another. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DiggerUK Posted January 4 Report Share Posted January 4 "Those that disseminate disinformation know that it is false" Well, that sorts it out for me. Not only have you revealed the correct path to me, but I shall immediately agitate for the establishment of 'Camps of Protective Custody' to protect us from the 'Disinformationistas', a safe place were they can be given 'Re-education' and an opportunity to recant their revisionist lunacy. Intelectual freedoms are saved, I love you Timm. Thank you..._ Quote Link to post Share on other sites
winkie Posted January 5 Report Share Posted January 5 Actually I like BBC radio....... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DiggerUK Posted January 5 Report Share Posted January 5 BBC radio good, Talk Radio bad. Stoning is too good for blasphemers..._ Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.