[gU9x3u8XmQNG]

Not sure I agree with this entirely, especially the points on media. And I don’t think it’s been beneficial at all.

I’d argue the problem here is more so quality, and can really only be solved with regulation. I want to read news, not a blog and opinion.

There should be clear and concise standards media outlets need to adhere to, but as per my suggestion in regards to social media; will not self regulate.

Additionally; there is no accountability and responsibility.

I would argue that the only benefit that has been made is making this more apparent and obvious.. and hopefully for the better.

[PittleyDunkin]

> There should be clear and concise standards media outlets need to adhere to

Yea that's be great but it's never going to happen, and if it did happen you wouldn't like it. It's like people wanting unbiased journalism: that only exists in the minds of the people who think there are only two serious opinions to have on any topic.

[partomniscient]

It does happen - sometimes get we unbiased journalism. Just not from 'professional' journalists.

In response to an article posted in the global news thread on reddit, someone who lives there and actually has local knowledge and context can click 'reply' and explain what's actually going on and contradict/correct what the clickbaity sensationalist mass media article contains.

For example, I live here, the government is passing trying to pass said law that they can't control the implementation of. It's also seen by some as a surveillance state move under the guise of "won't someone think of the children". Under the proposed rules, theoretically people < 16 won't even be allowed to text one another.

More in depth/informative article from a local source, not Reuters:

[1] https://www.thenewdaily.com.au/news/politics/australian-poli...

[ImPostingOnHN]

That link seems like the opposite of unbiased journalism, and also the title quotes someone as having called it a ‘deeply flawed plan’ but upon closer inspection, seems to be quoting the opinion of the author themself!.

[partomniscient]

At a fundamental aspect, that's what journalism is though - some individual noticing something and writing down what they percieved, its always biased. To think otherwise is ludicrous.

The linked article is way more informative and in depth compared to the link in the original HN post.

[ImPostingOnHN]

The linked post seems to spend all its time advocating for one position without taking even a moment, much less equal time, to even explain the other position.

[partomniscient]

WTF is people's obsession with the 'other position'. Sometimes there is no other position. It's just people complaining that someones opinion doesn't align with theirs.

An apple tree has 2 apples on it. It's a fact. There is no 'other position'. So sick of narrow-minded idiots/bigots. The article I linked to has way more factual information than the Reuters one.

The government is trying to legislate something it can't control. The whole situation is stupid.

[Neonlicht]

Social media could include everything including forums and websites were people can leave a comment.

I know that some people here on HN want to go full Unabomber and live in the woods but I kind of like the internet.