I am following up on this comment, Jen: "We are barred from engaging in illegal methods to obtain information — but we sure as hell aren't barred from reporting on that information once it lands under our door, or on our desks, or in our anonymous dropboxes."
It is my understanding that Assange's case (currently before an extradition hearing in the UK) is based on American charges for distributing information over a journalistic platform (WikiLeaks) rather than having illegally obtained the information himself. It is this precedent that has "The Intercept" calling it "the most important press freedom case in a generation."
Granted, this is happening in the UK and the USA and not Canada. Is it on Canadian journalists' radar? Does it put a chill on publishing nefariously obtained information in Canada as well?
I am not at all comfortable with Facebook or Twitter deciding what good journalism is but this story about Hunter Biden (or the story with Trump and the Russian Prossy and pee for that matter) is not the hill to die on. Seriously. There are way bigger issues with the policing of content on Facebook and Twitter than this idiotic hunter biden thing - the American election is important but there are more important things happening elsewhere - and there have been for months so to choose this as the issue where fb/twitter are policing journalism or content isn't necessarily the one that makes me cringe and wonder why social media companies are allowed to get away with it.
"If that sounds bad enough to warrant the ban on the journalistic enterprise, I have some really uncomfortable news for you about the ugliest element of scoop-ferreting." - this was awesome.
Also, why does anyone even care if Hunter Biden had sex with 50 prostitutes and opened an only fans page - he isn't the one running for president. Americans are so weird.
So, does The Line count as a QCJO so that we can qualify for the DNSTC? Government penchant for alphabet soup and misaligned incentives may be just what this newsletter could use.
P.S. I miss hearing Jen Gerson busting Jesse Brown's chops on the Canada thing podcast he does.
Even if it's true that "to a news outlet, major social media platforms increasingly represent a monopoly on the means of distribution" it doesn't necessarily follow that Twitter, a private company, has any special obligations to anyone, least of all to news outlets. If Twitter or Facebook choose erect barriers to people using their services to distribute misinformation and disinformation, that's their choice.
If anyone doesn't like it, they can always demand their money back and cancel their subscriptions. :)
I am following up on this comment, Jen: "We are barred from engaging in illegal methods to obtain information — but we sure as hell aren't barred from reporting on that information once it lands under our door, or on our desks, or in our anonymous dropboxes."
It is my understanding that Assange's case (currently before an extradition hearing in the UK) is based on American charges for distributing information over a journalistic platform (WikiLeaks) rather than having illegally obtained the information himself. It is this precedent that has "The Intercept" calling it "the most important press freedom case in a generation."
Granted, this is happening in the UK and the USA and not Canada. Is it on Canadian journalists' radar? Does it put a chill on publishing nefariously obtained information in Canada as well?
I am not at all comfortable with Facebook or Twitter deciding what good journalism is but this story about Hunter Biden (or the story with Trump and the Russian Prossy and pee for that matter) is not the hill to die on. Seriously. There are way bigger issues with the policing of content on Facebook and Twitter than this idiotic hunter biden thing - the American election is important but there are more important things happening elsewhere - and there have been for months so to choose this as the issue where fb/twitter are policing journalism or content isn't necessarily the one that makes me cringe and wonder why social media companies are allowed to get away with it.
"If that sounds bad enough to warrant the ban on the journalistic enterprise, I have some really uncomfortable news for you about the ugliest element of scoop-ferreting." - this was awesome.
Also, why does anyone even care if Hunter Biden had sex with 50 prostitutes and opened an only fans page - he isn't the one running for president. Americans are so weird.
So, does The Line count as a QCJO so that we can qualify for the DNSTC? Government penchant for alphabet soup and misaligned incentives may be just what this newsletter could use.
P.S. I miss hearing Jen Gerson busting Jesse Brown's chops on the Canada thing podcast he does.
Even if it's true that "to a news outlet, major social media platforms increasingly represent a monopoly on the means of distribution" it doesn't necessarily follow that Twitter, a private company, has any special obligations to anyone, least of all to news outlets. If Twitter or Facebook choose erect barriers to people using their services to distribute misinformation and disinformation, that's their choice.
If anyone doesn't like it, they can always demand their money back and cancel their subscriptions. :)