I'm am often surprised by the weird fact that when politicians discover "unexpected backlash" to some piece of legislation, they never seem to ask themselves how they got so out of touch with the people they theoretically represent and come up with some way to fix it.
I know that I shouldn't be surprised by this, but there we are.
“The government’s move to counter extremism must not end up silencing us all,” said Jodie Ginsberg, Chief Executive of Index on Censorship. “We should resist any attempts to make it a crime for people of faith to talk publicly about their beliefs, for political parties to voice unpopular views, and for venues from universities to village halls to host anyone whose opinions challenge the status quo. We urge the government to use its consultation to ensure this does not happen.”
I agree with this. The problem is that literally every domestic program equates "countering extremism" with "not allowing extremists to advocate their views".
Which is precisely the same as "making it a crime to talk about unpopular views".
It's also counterproductive: censoring unpopular views leads directly to the implication that those views aren't really so unpopular. If there wasn't a fear that people would find them persuasive, nobody would bother with trying to censor them.
It's not ridiculous at all, particularly if you've submitted them as evidence. Once it's evidence, you don't alter it in any way. It's a very fundamental rule that has been around for longer than the US because without it, determining truth can become the next best thing to impossible.
I guess TV has improved, but (admittedly from the outside, hearing people talk) it appears that there are still just a small handful of high quality shows. Throughout most of commercial TV history there have always been a small handful of high quality shows.
But since I've not seen any of them, this is just speculation based on stuff I hear.
I will admit that my expectation has been that the high quality TV shows are about equivalent to movies these days. Modern movies are generally only high quality if what you enjoy is special-effect-heavy action movies or family-oriented cartoons.
I once knew a shady businessman who behaved in an analogous manner with his own deals. He'd always find a way to get out of responsibilities he contractually agreed to.
I found him interesting because I knew him fairly well and am certain that he never entered a deal with the intention of screwing people over. Yet that was what always happened to one degree or another.
I think that he entered deals with honorable intentions, but lacked the intestinal fortitude needed when his agreements became more than slightly burdensome to him, so he would change color.
I think there's a word for that sort of person: weasel. I wouldn't be surprised if that's the dominant dynamic in these companies as well.
Their goal from day 1 has been very clear, and has never wavered. They correctly view the internet as a threat to their collective control over media distribution.
They don't want to destroy the internet as infrastructure. They want to control the use of the internet as a means of media distribution. They don't really care about how they make that happen or what the fallout would be, so long as it happens.
Researchers play along with this extortion racket solely because it's a kind of extortion. Researchers who don't regularly publish in the short list of accepted journals are ones who won't be researchers for very long. Their choice is simple: pay the fees or choose a different career.