3 ms·

> In a November speech, Ajit Pai, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, argued that “edge providers” like social-media websites and search engines

> In a November speech, Ajit Pai, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, argued that “edge providers” like social-media websites and search engines “routinely block or discriminate against content they don’t like.” ... > He also pointed to Twitter’s suspension of a pro-life campaign ad from Rep. Marsha Blackburn, an action that would have been illegal if done by a TV or radio station. Which is interesting, considering this FCC decision in 2014: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/sue-wilson/fcc-no-more-equal-time-re_b_5332812.html https://www.huffingtonpost.com/sue-wilson/fcc-no-more-equal-... It's also worth noting that FCC statute 315 (https://www.fcc.gov/media/policy/statutes-and-rules-candidate-appearances-advertising https://www.fcc.gov/media/policy/statutes-and-rules-candidat...) applies to licensees. Is the FCC going to begin licensing social media sites? Does the FCC consider internet traffic to be a broadcast mechanism? When newspaper publishers are not required to follow the same laws/statutes as radio and TV when it comes to political advertising?

issue9mm 9y ago
Without getting into the ideological minutiae, is it not possible for the government to know that there's something wrong in the marketplace, and not be obligated to address it? It should be possible for both the FCC to acknowledge that censorship by large, private, commercial entities is bad for free expression, while acknowledging that it is their platform to do with as they please, IMO.
TYPE_FASTER 9y ago
In addition, in 2009 Mike Pence sponsored the "Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2009" (https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/house-bill/226 https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/house-bill/226). This bill "amends the Communications Act of 1934 to prohibit the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), notwithstanding any other provision of any Act, from having the authority to require broadcasters to present opposing viewpoints on controversial issues of public importance."

issue9mm 9y ago

Without getting into the ideological minutiae, is it not possible for the government to know that there's something wrong in the marketplace, and not be obligated to address it? It should be possible for both the FCC to acknowledge that censorship by large, private, commercial entities is bad for free expression, while acknowledging that it is their platform to do with as they please, IMO.

TYPE_FASTER 9y ago

In addition, in 2009 Mike Pence sponsored the "Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2009" (https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/house-bill/226 https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/house-bill/226). This bill "amends the Communications Act of 1934 to prohibit the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), notwithstanding any other provision of any Act, from having the authority to require broadcasters to present opposing viewpoints on controversial issues of public importance."