Kind of fascinating that the first couple comments to be posted both start with a declaration of the author’s opinion of Colbert.
I read it as a pretty straightforward acknowledgment that we’ve reached a point in public discourse where people pay at least as much attention to who is making a point as we do to the actual point being made.
I wonder if finding common ground is even possible as long as that kind of tacit ad hominem remains baked into the way we think about public discourse.
I think this is an interesting conundrum, because I feel it is also important to critically consider the people who are making points because it can also inform you about why these points are being made. I don't consider this a tacit ad hominem per se, because we must acknowledge the open internet is full to the brim of bad actors and bots and we cannot equally engage with all comments. It is fine and appropriate to identify comments one doesn't want to engage with, not even with the brainpower of reading. This has increasingly forced people to make concessions to avoid misunderstandings due to other people's need to filter comments.
I was actually thinking the opposite. I sent my wife this text message:
Nonsense world when a comedian doing a late night show is the person willing to say something
It's not his job I'm glad he's doing it, but this is like watching the McDonald's workers Narcan people as part of their daily tasks
For reference she worked as a manager at McDonald's and would regularly have to deal with people ODing in the drive through and there was a "serious" discussion between managers, corporate, etc. about it they should be doing this or if they should be instructing everyone to stay indoors and let them die.
Corporate had to say that they must stay inside and eventually it became grounds for suspending employees that didn't want to sit and watch people die.
Contact me if you want her information for journalism purposes we have the receipts.
Corporate doesn't realize that forcing people to do nothing and watch others die might be bad for morale? Corporate doesn't realize that people regularly dying in their drive through without assistance is going to be an enormously negative PR hit if it ever comes out? Corporate doesn't even realize that people dying in the drive through is going to leave their drive through plugged for a long period of time?
I am appalled. Even ignoring the cold-hearted lack of empathy, I have a hard time imagining that this is even in their best interest.
The liability for corporate of an employee getting involved and them dying anyways is obscene. Their insurers probably said “if you allow this we will jack your premiums up by 10x” and that was that. Morale and bad PR isn’t going to compete with the inability to do business at all.
The drive through has a two lane system so cars can just go around.
The EMT would show up and drag them out of the car then a tow truck would come and get the car.
Most "regular" employees are happy to see the drive through disabled it makes their job much easier. Most restaurants place a small construction cone out to block one of the lanes to reduce customers as it's too much work.
The franchise owners are in a strange spot. I have some compassion and understanding for them, but also have helped build bots they use to submit fake reports to corporate to make their numbers go up or keep their numbers from going down too much. It's fascinating to be paid by a company to perform work they had to be hidden from other layers and that is fundamentally against the interest long term to any of them. I required a contract signed by them to ensure this bullshit isn't my problem. Again, I got the receipts if anyone wants!
I’ve never seen a come out at my McDonald’s in Ballard, and it has two lanes. They charge too much to leave money on the table though. Also, it’s a franchise, not corporate, so maybe a different attitude since the owner is probably also the operator.
Corporate doesn't care about morale, they want to stay as far away as possible from testing the limits of good samaratin laws at best, or directing unqualified employees to provide healthcare at worst.
What's so fascinating about it? I made one of those comments. It’s not about judging the person but about emphasizing the point. I’m saying the situation is so egregious that it overrides my usual dislike for the host. If anything, it validates the point being made, regardless of who is making it.
> I wish we could have put it on the show, where no one would’ve watched it
So true, the Streisand effect in full view. I think it got 95 million views on youtube. If just on the show with no comment from the US admin, probably would not break 5 million.
This admin is doing more harm to itself trying to censor people than if they ignored Colbert.
It increases. In Germany an ministry wanted to hide an document about glyphosat, this caused many people to request access to it that an judge ordered to make it public.
I would guess It depends on how thoroughly the organization doing the censorship can exert control over information.
For example, I’ve been pretty impressed by the extent to which the Chinese government is able to influence public discourse within its borders when they want to. But China is also home to over 90% of the world’s Chinese speakers, and it has its own domestic social media industry with very few users from outside the country, the Great Firewall, less of a culture of anti-authoritarianism, etc.
I’m not sure how feasible it would be for the US to get to a comparable position. The US is nowhere close to being a supermajority of the world’s English speakers, and it might be hard for the government to impose an isolationist policy on the country’s tech industry without inciting a revolt by its tech oligarchs.
The GFW is real and many people don’t bother trying to jump it anymore. Mostly people in China don’t really care what the rest of the world is thinking, they got 1.4 billion in their own world, it’s big enough. The USA has only 342 million people in comparison, and we have a whole country to the north of us that barely talks with a different accent. Heck, half of our movie stars are Canadian or Australian (it feels like it anyways).
I can, but it's a little backwards that a handful of antis can flag political posts upvoted by dozens of other HN users, with the rarest of interventions by mods.
It would make more sense to just allow users who don't like politics to not see politics. They get to keep their heads in the sand, we get to stay miserable, and the world will keep spinning.
Lots of people making money during this era of oligarchs, and the more open censorship keeps happening and being discussed, the faster it all might fall down. Hence, people try to suppress it.
> On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.
> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
"Most" leaves some wiggle room here, and I'd say CBS's censoring of Colbert post-acquisition is evidence of an "interesting new phenomenon". You might not find the story interesting, but that just means you're not the target audience.
There is also an FCC angle that is relevant in that it concerns broadcast communications. And a “Streisand Effect” aspect that is perennially interesting to many hackers. And, relatedly, an angle concerning how newer media (YouTube) alters the communication landscape.
This is a weird hill to fight and die on. I have no problem with the FCC applying their equal-time rule to late night shows if they run on local television. Seems like its a healthy thing for democracy.
Who do you think would need to be given equal time on conservative talk radio?
What would be the other outcome of the change to the rule that I am proposing? Also I am not even against the rule being applied to talk shows, I just want to see it applied non-hypocritically.
So you see general entertainment TV shows as the same as literally conservative radio? If a conservative radio show gave equal time to Jasmine Crockett who would even listen? If Hannity gave equal time to Joe Biden, probably hours of equal time, who would even want that? Or take it seriously? That's like a Mosque giving equal time to a Rabbi. That's not the spirit of the rule. Late night entertainment shows were getting around the rule by claiming they were news shows that are exempt.
> So you see general entertainment TV shows as the same as literally conservative radio? If a conservative radio show gave equal time to Jasmine Crockett who would even listen? If Hannity gave equal time to Joe Biden, probably hours of equal time, who would even want that?
(As far as the FCC is allowed to consider within First Amendment boundaries,) What makes Stephen Colbert's show "general entertainment" under the assumption that Hannity's show is "conservative"? Put another way, what makes Hannity's show not "general entertainment" yet makes Colbert's show "general entertainment"?
(I'm not trying to distract from xracy's comment [1] about selective enforcement.)
No, it's calling out a red herring. It's a valid response in a discussion to say that your comment is not contributing to the topic at hand. Especially when your comment is not really comparable.
I find it fascinating that USAians can not see that their two political parties are barely any different from each other. Trump is as vile as the previous lot, but with zero attempts at hiding it.
Anyway, we have a saying: you can not wake up someone pretending to be asleep.
> The Federal government is enforcing long-standing statutes.
You forgot the very important word "selectively". They are selectively enforcing long-standing statutes, which is probably illegal and is 100% obvious corruption.
For my entire life I've never seen the feds do anything other than selective enforcement. See the latest disclosures RE: Zorro ranch and little saint James as recent examples.
Convenient that since January 21, 2026 late night talk shows are no longer part of the "bona fide news interview exemption", thanks to the FCC who now has a new role as the censor of political speech. Enjoy your earned freedom of speech :)
This is just not accurate. Privious to this censorship-push since 1983 there had been a carve out for talks shows and it correspondly has not been enforced since the Regan administration. If it was, Fox News would be in violation 24/7.
Two relevant things: 1. Fox news has a whole network of affiliates who do broadcast. 2. the FCC regulates cable, satillite, telephony and internet in addition to broadcast.
I read it as a pretty straightforward acknowledgment that we’ve reached a point in public discourse where people pay at least as much attention to who is making a point as we do to the actual point being made.
I wonder if finding common ground is even possible as long as that kind of tacit ad hominem remains baked into the way we think about public discourse.