3 ms·

It's true, would-be intermediaries often mourn the loss of their status. They rarely consider that they might not win it back in the future they wish for. A cy

by Kalium 7y ago

It's true, would-be intermediaries often mourn the loss of their status. They rarely consider that they might not win it back in the future they wish for. A cynical view would be that this author wants a pulpit from which to preach The Truth unchallenged, and resents the diversity of viewpoints that come from the internet.

airstrike 7y ago
> diversity of viewpoints that come from the internet I subscribe the idea that the internet produces diverse echo chambers, but not necessarily a plurality of opinions engaged in healthy debate. Maybe I'm an idealist, but I think the biggest issue with today's media stems from the revocation of the Fairness Doctrine with no adequate replacement (media-ownership rules, increased public broadcasting, etc.)
- Kalium 7y ago
  I subscrbe to the idea that the Fairness Doctrine era media ecosystem produced a diversity of voices, not necessarily opinions engaged in healthy debate. Not to put too fine a point on it, but I'm not sure it is the business of government to be deciding what is or isn't healthy debate or trying to encourage it. It's far too easy to decide that healthy is things that agree with you, and unhealthy is everything else. This is routine in a number of places in the world that I would rather not live in. This is quite aside from the practical questions of how a person might square the constitutional questions around the Fairness Doctrine with the internet. The considerations that allowed it to apply to radio and TV don't work in an internet context. Call me an idealist, but I don't see why we need to structure things around deciding for the public what speech they are and aren't allowed to be exposed to. We're mostly talking about adults generally capable of making their own decisions, aren't we?
  - airstrike 7y ago
    > Not to put too fine a point on it, but I'm not sure it is the business of government to be deciding what is or isn't healthy debate or trying to encourage it. I think it's the business of government to encourage debate, as that's really the same as encouraging education. The government wasn't providing agendas on what ought to be discussed when the Fairness Doctrine was in place, just forcing people to debate a little more
    - Kalium 7y ago
      The core of the Fairness Doctrine was that the FCC's opinions of what "honest, equitable, and balanced" meant were legally binding. Whether or not that could ever be anything other than forcing people to debate a little more depends, in my opinion, a great deal on a person's faith in the immunity to corrupting influence of executive bodies with political oversight.
ineedasername 7y ago
I'm less cynical interpreting the author's motives. I think the author was just in a "get of my lawn" mode of thinking, not without some cause though unless/until the internet forms the immune systems needed to fend off the worse excesses of extremism and propaganda.

by Kalium 7y ago

airstrike 7y ago

> diversity of viewpoints that come from the internet I subscribe the idea that the internet produces diverse echo chambers, but not necessarily a plurality of opinions engaged in healthy debate. Maybe I'm an idealist, but I think the biggest issue with today's media stems from the revocation of the Fairness Doctrine with no adequate replacement (media-ownership rules, increased public broadcasting, etc.)

Kalium 7y ago
I subscrbe to the idea that the Fairness Doctrine era media ecosystem produced a diversity of voices, not necessarily opinions engaged in healthy debate. Not to put too fine a point on it, but I'm not sure it is the business of government to be deciding what is or isn't healthy debate or trying to encourage it. It's far too easy to decide that healthy is things that agree with you, and unhealthy is everything else. This is routine in a number of places in the world that I would rather not live in. This is quite aside from the practical questions of how a person might square the constitutional questions around the Fairness Doctrine with the internet. The considerations that allowed it to apply to radio and TV don't work in an internet context. Call me an idealist, but I don't see why we need to structure things around deciding for the public what speech they are and aren't allowed to be exposed to. We're mostly talking about adults generally capable of making their own decisions, aren't we?
- airstrike 7y ago
  > Not to put too fine a point on it, but I'm not sure it is the business of government to be deciding what is or isn't healthy debate or trying to encourage it. I think it's the business of government to encourage debate, as that's really the same as encouraging education. The government wasn't providing agendas on what ought to be discussed when the Fairness Doctrine was in place, just forcing people to debate a little more
  - Kalium 7y ago
    The core of the Fairness Doctrine was that the FCC's opinions of what "honest, equitable, and balanced" meant were legally binding. Whether or not that could ever be anything other than forcing people to debate a little more depends, in my opinion, a great deal on a person's faith in the immunity to corrupting influence of executive bodies with political oversight.

ineedasername 7y ago

I'm less cynical interpreting the author's motives. I think the author was just in a "get of my lawn" mode of thinking, not without some cause though unless/until the internet forms the immune systems needed to fend off the worse excesses of extremism and propaganda.