4 ms·

> Translation: We just fell through the cracks because of the technological specificity of older laws. The FCC is able to regulate cross-market ownership of me

> Translation: We just fell through the cracks because of the technological specificity of older laws. The FCC is able to regulate cross-market ownership of media only when the ownership includes a license to broadcast within publicly owned spectrum. It's not technological specificity, it has to do with the root of each technology's ability to broadcast media. > Time for new laws. I was talking about the Supreme Court recognizing wider application of the First Amendment, like in Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson. New laws won't help there.

stcredzero 8y ago
The FCC is able to regulate cross-market ownership of media only when the ownership includes a license to broadcast within publicly owned spectrum. The public didn't own that spectrum in 1812. Or at least no one knew. Again, the point is that laws (and regulations) are too technologically specific. It's time to update.
- jonathankoren 8y ago
  The EM spectrum is a natural and effectively finite resource. Regulation was there to enforce standards and to build a market. The internet from its very inception has always been an interconnection of private property working over private property. This the same reason why the FCC can regulate content on the airwaves, but can’t over cable. There’s no public property involved.
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    The EM spectrum is a natural and effectively finite resource. Regulation was there to enforce standards and to build a market. Hopefully, constellations of satellites providing Internet can take over almost entirely, so public property in the forms of bandwidth and orbits can justify such regulation. I say hopefully, because the current big tech culture has shown that it lacks the ethics to create level playing fields and curb its own biases. Ideologically biased actors in YouTube are basically engaging in ideological manipulation of the market within its walled garden.
- magicalist 8y ago
  > Again, the point is that laws (and regulations) are too technologically specific. It's time to update. To what? Without a convincing basis for the government to regulate a type of speech (like a limiting resource that needs to be licensed), your new law isn't going to make it past the first supreme court challenge.
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    (like a limiting resource that needs to be licensed) Space on the recommended section and monetization is a limiting resource. Basically, human attention and the sum total of all available information are valuable and limited resources, and manipulation of access to those has potentially dangerous and far reaching consequences.

stcredzero 8y ago

The FCC is able to regulate cross-market ownership of media only when the ownership includes a license to broadcast within publicly owned spectrum. The public didn't own that spectrum in 1812. Or at least no one knew. Again, the point is that laws (and regulations) are too technologically specific. It's time to update.

jonathankoren 8y ago
The EM spectrum is a natural and effectively finite resource. Regulation was there to enforce standards and to build a market. The internet from its very inception has always been an interconnection of private property working over private property. This the same reason why the FCC can regulate content on the airwaves, but can’t over cable. There’s no public property involved.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  The EM spectrum is a natural and effectively finite resource. Regulation was there to enforce standards and to build a market. Hopefully, constellations of satellites providing Internet can take over almost entirely, so public property in the forms of bandwidth and orbits can justify such regulation. I say hopefully, because the current big tech culture has shown that it lacks the ethics to create level playing fields and curb its own biases. Ideologically biased actors in YouTube are basically engaging in ideological manipulation of the market within its walled garden.
magicalist 8y ago
> Again, the point is that laws (and regulations) are too technologically specific. It's time to update. To what? Without a convincing basis for the government to regulate a type of speech (like a limiting resource that needs to be licensed), your new law isn't going to make it past the first supreme court challenge.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  (like a limiting resource that needs to be licensed) Space on the recommended section and monetization is a limiting resource. Basically, human attention and the sum total of all available information are valuable and limited resources, and manipulation of access to those has potentially dangerous and far reaching consequences.