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 t

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?