If you look at the history of the Public Broadcasting Act [1] that established the CPB and eventually PBS, it seems clear that it was passed in response to poorly-funded educational programming not being able to compete with high-budget commercial network TV. Its authors wanted to make it easier for smaller, non-commercial entities to produce and distribute high-quality educational content.
In that regard, the Internet (aided by inexpensive video gear and editing software) has succeeded far beyond their wildest dreams. The breadth and depth of educational content available just on YouTube is incredible.
The same forces that make it easy to produce and distribute educational content also make it easy to produce and distribute misinformation. This is a problem, but's unclear how a "PBS for the internet" would solve it.
For example, if you look at the one concrete piece of legislation mentioned in the article:
> The Local Journalism Sustainability Act takes a different approach to the government grant model. The bill would, for example, give a tax credit to people who donate to nonprofit newsrooms, or to small businesses who buy advertising at a nonprofit outlet.
It's not clear to me why people wouldn't just choose to donate to or buy advertising in outlets that promote whatever form of misinformation or partisan information that suits their tastes.
Large content platforms don't curate content, and so incentives are misaligned. I believe "curated content without click-baity incentives" is the kind of thing a "PBS" tries to solve.
E.g.: an educational video will be followed by flat-earth conspiracy video if the YouTube algorithm choses so. This sabotages content producers with – in this case – educational intentions, as the platform will make producers compete for attention.
Also, I believe what's been missing in the discussion is how "empowering anyone to push content" is not in itself a value, and that it's in fact possible to add negative value, at a global scale, at very little cost. This discussion won't happen as it's in platforms best interest to promote engagement, and engagement comes from pure controversy.
I think that's debatable. As much as journalism has been democratized it's also nose-dived in quality. And I don't mean the MSM. The overwhelming majority of "citizen journalists" are producing very low quality or even downright detrimental work. At the same time, a lot of professional journalism has sacrificed quality for revenue. Public media like PBS and NPR affiliates are intended to promote professional journalism (or other edifying content) without the corruption of a profit motive.
"The bill would, for example, give a tax credit to people who donate to nonprofit newsrooms"
I'm guessing the overwhelming majority of these nonprofit newsrooms will end up being party-aligned so this will effectively be giving tax credits for political donations.
Well said. For argument's sake, let's say there is a PBS run Twitter clone? Who gets to decide what is allowed or not? So much of the social media space is built on using fomo and outrage to push agendas. These are the things that make it sticky. It seems clear that most people want the addiction, they want the drama. I think we can shrink the power of some of these companies with VAT on digital advertising, but even so, what is going to replace them? Something so bad we can't even imagine it now? It kinda feels a little like the one part of the Matrix where they reveal that the initial Matrix was intended to make everyone just mindlessly happy all the time but it didn't work until they made it mostly miserable. Happiness without sadness might just be too boring for humans. That said, humans love to belong so I don't know how we ever have a Internet without centralization. People always want to be with everyone else.
>it seems clear that it was passed in response to poorly-funded educational programming not being able to compete with high-budget commercial network TV.
>The breadth and depth of educational content available just on YouTube is incredible.
It seems like the second statement I quoted shows the failure (at least on the Internet) of the first.
When we can have decentralized, or at least widely used non-profit distribution channels like PBS provides for TV, that will be a very good thing.
But as long as the primary distribution channels are focused on raking in the cash rather than providing access to good educational/cultural content for that purpose, the free exchange of ideas is at risk.
What actually qualifies as misinformation? I see lots of things these days that fall under that label that would simply have been called gossip in the past and covered from the perspective of exploring popular gossip.
Yes. Supply of PBS quality content is a solved problem.
The unsolved problem is the demand side, people making better consumption choices. Legislation can't fix this, since the government doesn't have a unified view of what "good" content is, and is heavily interested in promoting various striped of partisan propaganda.
PBS educational programming is also a product of the unique American political system. In short, classroom education was entirely controlled by individual states. Any new federal law/program in the education space is therefore easiest though different media. So the creation of a "public" broadcaster works, as opposed to any in-the-classroom federal program which would face constitutional challenge.
Presumably, a "PBS for the Internet" could provide a space and funding model for that wealth of quality educational content without being surrounded by garbage. Right now the problem is that good stuff like Up and Atom or Mark Rober exist right alongside Top 10 Reasons Satanists Want You To Get Vaccinated.
Having a safe educational website you can easily let your kids use without worrying about it corrupting their brains seems just as useful as having a safe educational TV station was in the '80s and '90s.
Also PBS has a great kids games app(s) that are free with games that are fun / no ads.
And PBS kids video app is again free, great content, no ads.
If you're in the US and care about that content, I suggest contributing to your local station. The quality of the content from kids to adult is outstanding. It's not usual for me to browse a few streaming services and just end up watching PBS's content in the end.
Maybe when it comes to the article they mean more accessible? But I'm not sure as they seem to ignore the PBS content available.
It appears the call is for more local journalism/programming online. PBS has great national and children's programs and does have broadcast local journalism/topics of interest. However, getting access to that online is more difficult.
Orthogonal: Can we pause for a moment and admire how amazing the PBS logo is? They've kept it for many years and haven't fallen to "trends". Here is some history: https://logos.fandom.com/wiki/PBS
I donate to PBS for the streaming, but I wish they would update their content more frequently, or rather they have a lot of content that I don’t care much about (especially the local programming). Mostly I’m interested in the nature, science, and history documentaries, especially the nature and nova series, but they only show a new episode once every few weeks.
I would like to note that PBS does actually publish Youtube videos via PBS Digital Studios[0][1]. They have great creators making PBS quality content but in "Youtube" style formats with a wide range of topics (science, popular culture, art, food, news, and music).
We watch the full PBS NewsHour most nights, simulcast/streamed live on YouTube (also available on all/most PBS affiliates) ... and it's available for later viewing as well. Some would say it leans a bit left but I think it's the best unbiased presentation of (U.S.) national concerns. They get wide access for interview to the most relevant American and non-American persons across a wide range of topics and are not afraid to pose the tough questions.
Yes, and the article is talking about deplatforming issues. What if Alphabet decided it didn't like what PBS was saying, and decided to use its leverage as owner of the platform to influence PBS content? Given everything crazy that has transpired over the last few years, it's not so far fetched now. Maybe it has already happened. Sure, eventually we would find out about it, but in the meantime great damage to society could be done.
If we just focus on video just a sec and not the ENTIRE INTERNET, PBS seems increasingly irrelevant in an era where YouTube has narrowed the gap between content creators and content consumers. I remember the 90's being filled with pledge drives so PBS can raise funding. The content was good at the time but it's no where near what YouTube has become.
If we go back to this original article linked, who gets to decide what is disinformation/misinformation? Funding should not come from the government because that would introduce all sorts of bureaucracy and gatekeeping efforts by political policymakers.
Problem is quality. "YouTube kids" is a big meme, because some of the most popular content creators were certainly not creating kid friendly content. Example being "spiderman and Elsa".
In my opinion kids should not be on the internet. Not that we can reasonably stop them, but I don't at all believe YouTube is an equivalent to directed quality content like PBS.
i understand the worry about the government gatekeeping disinformation/misinformation, but I think the worry is massively overblown. We're not talking about the government having a monopoly on the information ecosystem, and while there are certainly controversial topics where the government might be tempted to but their thumb on the scale if they had control over the news, the truth in most cases (climate change, the result of the presidential election, etc) is pretty cut-and-dried.
Besides, the vast majority of the existing misinformation in the US is coming from for-profit news agencies. You're already allowing people to decide what is and isn't misinformation- would you rather it be rupert murdoch, or a politician that you can vote out of office?
A lot of good programming on PBS. But ever notice that the good programming generally occurs during the pledge drives? I mean, they might as well just run commercials.
That said, there are definite problems with the ad driven model of YT too. Maybe it's not the model that's the problem but who ultimately runs it.
I think your point is valid, but I would like to point our that PBS has a lot of great stuff on Youtube. I think there is a role for public broadcasting, but it will probably be marginal.
> who gets to decide what is disinformation/misinformation?
I certainly hope it isn't the authors of this paper, the German Marshall Fund. The GMF funds their own propaganda like the Alliance for Securing Democracy, and they are funded by USAID. USAID overtly does what the CIA used to do covertly.
https://consortiumnews.com/2020/02/13/state-backed-alliance-...
I would agree. In terms of production quality, youtube videos can be all over the map (although the cost of quality continues to decrease), but I'd say that the large-scale commercial broadcasters may well continue to dwindle. Personally, 1 guy (or 2/3) youtube shows are my favorites, they tend to be more charming and cover niche areas.
For newsie news, I find myself using mostly RT in my news reader. There's a POV of course, but they don't carry much US domestic news, which is fine by me.
This is laudable - but it ignores the reality of aggregators and user behaviour in the attention economy. The audience is centralised, and increasingly so. The question becomes: how can a pluralistic public-service ecosystem flourish within that economy?
In the UK the BBC has tried a number of routes for this, including sponsoring local reporters, external linking to local news outlets to try and share their audience and so on. None have really been successful but it's important that they keep trying -- and odd that a piece like this wouldn't mention the BBC at all, come to think of it.
Holy crap I did not know how badly I wanted “a PBS for the Internet” until I read that sentence. Grants for media designed to educate and inform, free of the constraints of “what sells” and “what doesn’t offend the advertisers”. With, yes, some actual control over the content instead of the current world where anything goes as long as it’s not explicitly breaking a law, or annoying one of the five immense vertically-integrated media corporations that have destroyed the public domain. Fuck. How do we make this happen.
If I was in charge, I'd try to find as many non-spammy and wholesome Content Creators, like Mark Rober or Dustin /w Smarter Every Day, and have them figure out a way to scale a program/syndication that attracts content creators similar to them.
Youtube is great. You can learn anything on Youtube... but Youtube is also filled with absolute trash childrens programming that literally rots my kids' brains as they watch it. Thats not to mention the unfathomable child porn rings that were caught time-stamp commenting unintentionally suggestive poses by underage kids...
We need a curated Youtube for the curious mind that doesn't waste my time with 3 minutes of content stretched to 11 mins to get monetized.
Authorizing the CPB to support local reporting could be a bit of a game-changer for the current status quo. I don't know that the rest of the idea would work (there are an awful lot of reasons why Internet media isn't anything like broadcast media), but "subsidizing local reporting as a public good" is an idea I hadn't seen before.
This doesn't seem to be much of a push or much of a coherent vision, just hand-waving, a little grab-bag of popular ideas, and a wish for more federal money.
Terrible idea - just another entity to be ideologically captured.
Until we figure out how to actually enshrine political diversity, this will end up staffed entirely by people of a certain politics, and will become despised by many on the other side.
A few posts here bring up the BBC and while it is an interesting case because they are so specifically funded by the public through a "TV License" [1], I think maybe a better comparison for this "Public Internet" should be to CSPAN.
Using the CSPAN model, a public good commons of internet services would be carved out through an offset program in Wireless Spectrum auctions and other Telecom Service Provider Licenses and renewals [2]. Maybe if they ever get around to the Big Tech Tax that could help too.
[1]
You must have a TV Licence if you: watch or record programmes on a TV, computer or other device as they're broadcast. download or watch BBC programmes on iPlayer – live, catch up or on demand.
£159 for a colour TV Licence and £53.50 for a black and white TV Licence
C-SPAN is a private, nonprofit organization funded by its cable and satellite affiliates, and it does not have advertisements on any of its networks, radio stations, or websites, nor does it solicit donations or pledges.
I had this exact idea years ago and shared it with colleagues in the tech sector in Phoenix, AZ. The primacy of the idea also stemmed from the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967[1] as discussed in this article.
We agreed on many common points, but could not think of how one would create an NPR-inspired version of essentially Reddit/Digg/Slashdot without first-party curation, which completely kills the idea of a social news aggregate.
I think unfortunately the idea is incompatible without heavy handed moderation. Hacker News seems to attract the rightish crowd, though, so maybe it can be done. NPR attracts the sort of crowd I'm looking for in a social news aggregator.
I'm not a teenager anymore. I'm looking for less memes and more interesting reading that publications of yesteryear seem to produce less and less of each year.
So boring content that everyone says they like, but never consume, with constant requests for donations.
So what would be the purpose? Current trusted platforms are ignored and news outlets that report on ignorant humans with wacko theories defying reality are thriving. One or more additional trusted platform will not make a difference.
While PBS is a player (Spacetime, Eons, Deep Look etc) science/tech content is covered in much greater depth and with more expertise on Youtube than anything that was ever on traditional broadcast tv if you curate your subscriptions.
Other public broadcasters like the BBC and Australian ABC have been into digital, particularly for news and kids content for ages. My kids stream our public broadcaster's kids only channel full of high quality content like Bluey from their devices and have for many years.
Perhap the US needs to open up more to content from elsewhere though there are geo-blocking issues as a lot of public funded content is only free in the local market then sold to foreign markets. So what is on the public broadcaster for me is Disney or Netflix content for others.
Historically we had public access to the cable network as a part of the cable act of 1984 - in the 80's and 90's there was a concept of PEG - Public, Educational, and Governmental TV channels that the Cable company had to carry as a part of being able to put lines in the ground.
The distribution side of this was made mostly irrelevant by on-demand services like YouTube - where it still exists it's mostly videography training, or making other local content, with a few channels still playing tapes.
When I hear "PBS for the internet" I think publicly-funded content.
Content on the internet doesn't have pride of place like it does on broadcast media. The internet is about platforms.
"PBS for the internet" should be about creating, first, open standards for content distribution, promotion, and moderation. And then maybe implementing those standards.
Content is basically free on the internet with the right platform. Trying to counter misinformation with good content is boiling the ocean. The better way to spread good content is to create standards and maybe a platform that incentivizes third parties to make good content.
If you watch news on PBS, you see essentially the same stories, covered in the same way, as you see on any other network. Try comparing them as an experiment, it is enlightening.
[+] [-] jonas21|4 years ago|reply
In that regard, the Internet (aided by inexpensive video gear and editing software) has succeeded far beyond their wildest dreams. The breadth and depth of educational content available just on YouTube is incredible.
The same forces that make it easy to produce and distribute educational content also make it easy to produce and distribute misinformation. This is a problem, but's unclear how a "PBS for the internet" would solve it.
For example, if you look at the one concrete piece of legislation mentioned in the article:
> The Local Journalism Sustainability Act takes a different approach to the government grant model. The bill would, for example, give a tax credit to people who donate to nonprofit newsrooms, or to small businesses who buy advertising at a nonprofit outlet.
It's not clear to me why people wouldn't just choose to donate to or buy advertising in outlets that promote whatever form of misinformation or partisan information that suits their tastes.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Broadcasting_Act_of_196...
[+] [-] hcarvalhoalves|4 years ago|reply
E.g.: an educational video will be followed by flat-earth conspiracy video if the YouTube algorithm choses so. This sabotages content producers with – in this case – educational intentions, as the platform will make producers compete for attention.
Also, I believe what's been missing in the discussion is how "empowering anyone to push content" is not in itself a value, and that it's in fact possible to add negative value, at a global scale, at very little cost. This discussion won't happen as it's in platforms best interest to promote engagement, and engagement comes from pure controversy.
[+] [-] tootie|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lazyeye|4 years ago|reply
I'm guessing the overwhelming majority of these nonprofit newsrooms will end up being party-aligned so this will effectively be giving tax credits for political donations.
[+] [-] snarf21|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nobody9999|4 years ago|reply
>The breadth and depth of educational content available just on YouTube is incredible.
It seems like the second statement I quoted shows the failure (at least on the Internet) of the first.
When we can have decentralized, or at least widely used non-profit distribution channels like PBS provides for TV, that will be a very good thing.
But as long as the primary distribution channels are focused on raking in the cash rather than providing access to good educational/cultural content for that purpose, the free exchange of ideas is at risk.
[+] [-] fud7r7rgtf|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gowld|4 years ago|reply
The unsolved problem is the demand side, people making better consumption choices. Legislation can't fix this, since the government doesn't have a unified view of what "good" content is, and is heavily interested in promoting various striped of partisan propaganda.
Mr Rogers got broad bipartisan support. Today he's considered "left wing".
[+] [-] matchagaucho|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brodouevencode|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sandworm101|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] raxxorrax|4 years ago|reply
Which information specifically do you think is so endemic, that it poses a danger? This isn't the case anywhere in my opinion.
But sure, give Bezos some tax breaks because he invested in the Washington Post... without it probably will become extremely poor.
[+] [-] babypuncher|4 years ago|reply
Having a safe educational website you can easily let your kids use without worrying about it corrupting their brains seems just as useful as having a safe educational TV station was in the '80s and '90s.
[+] [-] jimbokun|4 years ago|reply
Algorithmic advertising driven discovery can incentivize driving people towards radicalization, if that’s what keeps them clicking.
So a system not based on advertising or profit motive could maybe avoid some of those extremes.
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] duxup|4 years ago|reply
https://www.pbs.org/video/
Also PBS has a great kids games app(s) that are free with games that are fun / no ads.
And PBS kids video app is again free, great content, no ads.
If you're in the US and care about that content, I suggest contributing to your local station. The quality of the content from kids to adult is outstanding. It's not usual for me to browse a few streaming services and just end up watching PBS's content in the end.
Maybe when it comes to the article they mean more accessible? But I'm not sure as they seem to ignore the PBS content available.
[+] [-] jbluepolarbear|4 years ago|reply
The apps are really good and they try to keep relevant content and popular shows on the apps.
[+] [-] cogman10|4 years ago|reply
Do we need this? Meh.. IDK.
[+] [-] systemvoltage|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] encryptluks2|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] igorstellar|4 years ago|reply
how do you find one to contribute? definitely interested in that, been binge watching The Great British Baking Show for a while now
[+] [-] throwaway894345|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jds_|4 years ago|reply
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PBS_Digital_Studios [1] https://www.youtube.com/c/pbsdigitalstudios/channels
[+] [-] nwatson|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stronglikedan|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tootie|4 years ago|reply
But I think the paper is calling for more than just local news. They want expansive digital properties to supplement all our browsing habits.
[+] [-] Lendal|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 1-6|4 years ago|reply
If we go back to this original article linked, who gets to decide what is disinformation/misinformation? Funding should not come from the government because that would introduce all sorts of bureaucracy and gatekeeping efforts by political policymakers.
[+] [-] devwastaken|4 years ago|reply
In my opinion kids should not be on the internet. Not that we can reasonably stop them, but I don't at all believe YouTube is an equivalent to directed quality content like PBS.
[+] [-] rrose|4 years ago|reply
Besides, the vast majority of the existing misinformation in the US is coming from for-profit news agencies. You're already allowing people to decide what is and isn't misinformation- would you rather it be rupert murdoch, or a politician that you can vote out of office?
[+] [-] starkd|4 years ago|reply
That said, there are definite problems with the ad driven model of YT too. Maybe it's not the model that's the problem but who ultimately runs it.
[+] [-] dj_gitmo|4 years ago|reply
> who gets to decide what is disinformation/misinformation?
I certainly hope it isn't the authors of this paper, the German Marshall Fund. The GMF funds their own propaganda like the Alliance for Securing Democracy, and they are funded by USAID. USAID overtly does what the CIA used to do covertly. https://consortiumnews.com/2020/02/13/state-backed-alliance-...
[+] [-] d6ba56c039d9|4 years ago|reply
I would agree. In terms of production quality, youtube videos can be all over the map (although the cost of quality continues to decrease), but I'd say that the large-scale commercial broadcasters may well continue to dwindle. Personally, 1 guy (or 2/3) youtube shows are my favorites, they tend to be more charming and cover niche areas.
For newsie news, I find myself using mostly RT in my news reader. There's a POV of course, but they don't carry much US domestic news, which is fine by me.
[+] [-] marbletiles|4 years ago|reply
This is laudable - but it ignores the reality of aggregators and user behaviour in the attention economy. The audience is centralised, and increasingly so. The question becomes: how can a pluralistic public-service ecosystem flourish within that economy?
In the UK the BBC has tried a number of routes for this, including sponsoring local reporters, external linking to local news outlets to try and share their audience and so on. None have really been successful but it's important that they keep trying -- and odd that a piece like this wouldn't mention the BBC at all, come to think of it.
[+] [-] egypturnash|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stevefrench93|4 years ago|reply
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9793263/Nobody-trus...
[+] [-] cdolan|4 years ago|reply
Youtube is great. You can learn anything on Youtube... but Youtube is also filled with absolute trash childrens programming that literally rots my kids' brains as they watch it. Thats not to mention the unfathomable child porn rings that were caught time-stamp commenting unintentionally suggestive poses by underage kids...
We need a curated Youtube for the curious mind that doesn't waste my time with 3 minutes of content stretched to 11 mins to get monetized.
[+] [-] Avery3R|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] shadowgovt|4 years ago|reply
Authorizing the CPB to support local reporting could be a bit of a game-changer for the current status quo. I don't know that the rest of the idea would work (there are an awful lot of reasons why Internet media isn't anything like broadcast media), but "subsidizing local reporting as a public good" is an idea I hadn't seen before.
[+] [-] Semiapies|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] disabled|4 years ago|reply
See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CARNet
You can also get extremely cheap access to CARNET via mobile and broadband providers in Croatia. They are CARNET only plans.
[+] [-] Wolfenstein98k|4 years ago|reply
Until we figure out how to actually enshrine political diversity, this will end up staffed entirely by people of a certain politics, and will become despised by many on the other side.
[+] [-] ladyattis|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jimmySixDOF|4 years ago|reply
Using the CSPAN model, a public good commons of internet services would be carved out through an offset program in Wireless Spectrum auctions and other Telecom Service Provider Licenses and renewals [2]. Maybe if they ever get around to the Big Tech Tax that could help too.
[1]
https://www.gov.uk/tv-licence[2]
[+] [-] andrewmcwatters|4 years ago|reply
We agreed on many common points, but could not think of how one would create an NPR-inspired version of essentially Reddit/Digg/Slashdot without first-party curation, which completely kills the idea of a social news aggregate.
I think unfortunately the idea is incompatible without heavy handed moderation. Hacker News seems to attract the rightish crowd, though, so maybe it can be done. NPR attracts the sort of crowd I'm looking for in a social news aggregator.
I'm not a teenager anymore. I'm looking for less memes and more interesting reading that publications of yesteryear seem to produce less and less of each year.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Broadcasting_Act_of_196...
[+] [-] JaggerFoo|4 years ago|reply
So what would be the purpose? Current trusted platforms are ignored and news outlets that report on ignorant humans with wacko theories defying reality are thriving. One or more additional trusted platform will not make a difference.
[+] [-] shirro|4 years ago|reply
Other public broadcasters like the BBC and Australian ABC have been into digital, particularly for news and kids content for ages. My kids stream our public broadcaster's kids only channel full of high quality content like Bluey from their devices and have for many years.
Perhap the US needs to open up more to content from elsewhere though there are geo-blocking issues as a lot of public funded content is only free in the local market then sold to foreign markets. So what is on the public broadcaster for me is Disney or Netflix content for others.
[+] [-] zdw|4 years ago|reply
https://www.fcc.gov/media/public-educational-and-governmenta...
The distribution side of this was made mostly irrelevant by on-demand services like YouTube - where it still exists it's mostly videography training, or making other local content, with a few channels still playing tapes.
[+] [-] jackcosgrove|4 years ago|reply
When I hear "PBS for the internet" I think publicly-funded content.
Content on the internet doesn't have pride of place like it does on broadcast media. The internet is about platforms.
"PBS for the internet" should be about creating, first, open standards for content distribution, promotion, and moderation. And then maybe implementing those standards.
Content is basically free on the internet with the right platform. Trying to counter misinformation with good content is boiling the ocean. The better way to spread good content is to create standards and maybe a platform that incentivizes third parties to make good content.
[+] [-] spfzero|4 years ago|reply