bigrod

Should the BBC go subscription only?

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, linesrg said:

I want to watch a programme from beginning to end without (repeated) adverts every 15 minutes. I would pay for that service.

I pretty much achieve this by only ever watching TV that has been recorded to a PVR, such that it is trivial to skip adverts. If the BBC disappeared I'd expect advert breaks to become more frequent on commercial channels though.

Edited by MartinC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Gaz38

Exactly.

But also, as I said already, governments aren't all we have to be wary of. Big tech firms which host information and opinion have enormous power to abuse and already have. Increasingly it is the de facto public square and action is needed to prevent them becoming Big Brother that we so rightly fear of government before it. 

Some people misplace their concerns with independent creators. But we can handle that organically and people are free to counter what they disagree with.  Nefarious planting of misinformation including by foreign agents, which yes can happen a bit, has a small fraction of the influence that big out in the open tech firms have in the way they underhandedly choose to skew information and block as the case may be. This has significant electoral implications and it has to be sorted out urgently.

Edited by Cloth-Ears.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Cloth-Ears. said:

@Gaz38

Exactly.

But also, as I said already, governments aren't all we have to be wary of. Big tech firms which host information and opinion have enormous power to abuse and already have. Increasingly it is the de facto public square and action is needed to prevent them becoming Big Brother that we so rightly fear of government before it. 

Some people misplace their concerns with independent creators. But we can handle that organically and people are free to counter what they disagree with.  Nefarious planting of misinformation including by foreign agents, which yes can happen a bit, has a small fraction of the influence that big out in the open tech firms have in the way they underhandedly choose to skew information and block as the case may be. This has significant electoral implications and it has to be sorted out urgently.

Is that a new thing? 

I've tried countering things I disagree with and got called all sorts of nasty names ;)

Screenshot_20200206_121035.jpg

Edited by Gaz38

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Wammer
6 hours ago, Gaz38 said:

Is that a new thing? 

I've tried countering things I disagree with and got called all sorts of nasty names ;)

Screenshot_20200206_121035.jpg

You need to be able to discern between simply having a different opinion (Labour vs Tory, Leave vs Remain, god-exists-or-doesn't, cables can or can't make a difference...) and being plain wrong (climate change, earthing boxes, cable lifters). :minikev:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 06/02/2020 at 00:32, Cloth-Ears. said:

neither do I want government going around telling us what's true or false and what is acceptable or who can participate. Both the latter and the failure to tackle the former are an Orwellian nightmare.

I don't want the government doing anything either. I want an international independent body with sweeping powers that force enhanced self governance on the owners of platforms.

To trust anything to anyone without legislation and potentially fatal penalties is, IMHO, negligent in the extreme. It ignores centuries of appreciation of human nature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Tune said:

I don't want the government doing anything either. I want an international independent body with sweeping powers that force enhanced self governance on the owners of platforms.

To trust anything to anyone without legislation and potentially fatal penalties is, IMHO, negligent in the extreme. It ignores centuries of appreciation of human nature.

Appointed by, and answerable to, whom? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The United Nations would seem to be a reasonable group to set up a department. It's a tough ask. I don't dispute that. We have to reach far and to think outside the box. The alternative however is as destructive to society as nuclear war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Tune said:

The United Nations would seem to be a reasonable group to set up a department. It's a tough ask. I don't dispute that. We have to reach far and to think outside the box. The alternative however is as destructive to society as nuclear war.

I'm not sure anybody living in Hiroshima would agree, 80000 people dead in few seconds takes some beating 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The BBC is still one of the few media outlets that I trust to present balanced analysis in worthwhile depth. It's also one of the 'content makers' that I value the most for quality and diversity. It makes up the larger chunk of my viewing and listening.

Freedom of choice sounds like an important, perhaps even compelling reason to move away from the licence fee, but would doing so really lead to genuine choice? I 'm not yet convinced that it would. 

I also wonder if the 'freedom card' is being overplayed, somewhat. Individual freedom is important, but so is the cohesion and well-being of society, as a whole. The BBC has been supported by a national consensus; the approval of society to pay a charge in return for a mission to 'inform, educate and entertain'.

Would a landscape of subscription only providers prioritise quality and diversity? There's plenty of money to be made in entertainment, and plenty of power to be gained through controlling information (and misinformation) but not much money or power in education or minority interests. 

I do think that change should come, but until I hear a case for change that adequately protects society from predatory operators, and guarantees quality and impartiality, I would rather leave things as they are for a while. My experience is that the 'market' system is not (yet) capable of achieving those things on it's own. The compulsory nature of the licence fee is not ideal, nowadays, but it is still the compromise that I find it more easy to live with.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, savvypaul said:

The BBC is still one of the few media outlets that I trust to present balanced analysis in worthwhile depth. It's also one of the 'content makers' that I value the most for quality and diversity. It makes up the larger chunk of my viewing and listening.

Freedom of choice sounds like an important, perhaps even compelling reason to move away from the licence fee, but would doing so really lead to genuine choice? I 'm not yet convinced that it would. 

I also wonder if the 'freedom card' is being overplayed, somewhat. Individual freedom is important, but so is the cohesion and well-being of society, as a whole. The BBC has been supported by a national consensus; the approval of society to pay a charge in return for a mission to 'inform, educate and entertain'.

Would a landscape of subscription only providers prioritise quality and diversity? There's plenty of money to be made in entertainment, and plenty of power to be gained through controlling information (and misinformation) but not much money or power in education or minority interests. 

I do think that change should come, but until I hear a case for change that adequately protects society from predatory operators, and guarantees quality and impartiality, I would rather leave things as they are for a while. My experience is that the 'market' system is not (yet) capable of achieving those things on it's own. The compulsory nature of the licence fee is not ideal, nowadays, but it is still the compromise that I find it more easy to live with.

Erm, consensus and approval of a nation? 

It's illegal not to show your consent and approval by buying a TV licence 

I've never consented, I'm forced to pay the fee by law

Having said that I personally think it worthwhile but that doesn't mean everyone does

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Gaz38 said:

Erm, consensus and approval of a nation? 

It's illegal not to show your consent and approval by buying a TV licence 

I've never consented, I'm forced to pay the fee by law

Having said that I personally think it worthwhile but that doesn't mean everyone does

Legally, you are 100% correct, of course.

I mean to describe 'tacit' acceptance.

If any law is broken often enough by 'normal law abiding people' then the law eventually falls into disrepute.

Edited by savvypaul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, savvypaul said:

Legally, you are 100% correct, of course.

I mean to describe 'tacit' acceptance.

If any law is broken often enough by 'normal law abiding people' then the law eventually falls into disrepute.

Like speeding? (tongue in cheek but nonetheless true, albeit speeding has the potential to endanger others) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Gaz38 said:

Like speeding? (tongue in cheek but nonetheless true, albeit speeding has the potential to endanger others) 

I can understand you putting forward that example. It's an interesting one because, on one hand the public has come to accept greater detection and enforcement, especially in built up areas where safety concerns are more apparent, but on the other hand speed limits have been raised for dual carriageways (in the 1970s, iirc) and there is now talk from government about raising the motorway speed limit to 80mph.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gaz38 said:

I'm not sure anybody living in Hiroshima would agree, 80000 people dead in few seconds takes some beating 

You joke.

That is a typical response and yet academics across the planet share my view.

In a nuclear war nobody wins. In a digital war, they do. Even better - they manage it without casualties themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Tune said:

I don't want the government doing anything either. I want an international independent body with sweeping powers that force enhanced self governance on the owners of platforms.

To trust anything to anyone without legislation and potentially fatal penalties is, IMHO, negligent in the extreme. It ignores centuries of appreciation of human nature.

NO !

Just because it isn't directly the guvvermint of the day, doesn't mean it isn;t a problem. "Sweeping powers " - well, I'm glad you're not in power. Its a shit idea in principle - absolutely horrible !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.