3 ms·

>> any regulation there would risk violating the 1st amendment. Perhaps, but its a risk the US took for decades (1938 - 1985) and the political climate was les

>> any regulation there would risk violating the 1st amendment. Perhaps, but its a risk the US took for decades (1938 - 1985) and the political climate was less divisive during that period. You can't say "nothing can be done" when things can and have been done that we don't do anymore. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine

jacobr1 5y ago
What is interesting is the loss of the "commons," here. Even if we brought back the fairness doctrine, in practice the fragmentation of the media landscape would still drive a different style of discourse. We aren't going to go back to 3 national news broadcasts. And the justification for the doctrine extended the same way. It didn't regulate newspapers for example. Because the airways aren't privately owned, but rather leased from the public, the doctrine was considered more a regulation of this common space, than a regulation on speech on general.
nradov 5y ago
The Fairness Doctrine existed only because broadcast spectrum was finite. It never applied to other types of media.
- georgeecollins 5y ago
  You are right. But there is still a finite radio broadcast spectrum we don't apply this to, and a finite number of cable channels, a finite number of social media platforms, search engines or browsers with a million users, etc. I am not saying something like that is a good idea. I am saying that to throw your hands up and say nothing can be done is not accurate. A lot of times people say you can't regulate a thing because you can't regulate every possible instance. But by that logic we shouldn't have stop signs because people run through them everyday. Yet stop signs are important.
  - nradov 5y ago
    There is no limit on the number of cable channels, social media platforms, search engines, or browsers. Anyone can create more. Unlike with RF spectrum there are no fundamental physical limits.
    - georgeecollins 5y ago
      Sure, go start a browser or a cable channel and tell me how that goes.

jacobr1 5y ago

What is interesting is the loss of the "commons," here. Even if we brought back the fairness doctrine, in practice the fragmentation of the media landscape would still drive a different style of discourse. We aren't going to go back to 3 national news broadcasts. And the justification for the doctrine extended the same way. It didn't regulate newspapers for example. Because the airways aren't privately owned, but rather leased from the public, the doctrine was considered more a regulation of this common space, than a regulation on speech on general.

nradov 5y ago

The Fairness Doctrine existed only because broadcast spectrum was finite. It never applied to other types of media.

georgeecollins 5y ago
You are right. But there is still a finite radio broadcast spectrum we don't apply this to, and a finite number of cable channels, a finite number of social media platforms, search engines or browsers with a million users, etc. I am not saying something like that is a good idea. I am saying that to throw your hands up and say nothing can be done is not accurate. A lot of times people say you can't regulate a thing because you can't regulate every possible instance. But by that logic we shouldn't have stop signs because people run through them everyday. Yet stop signs are important.
- nradov 5y ago
  There is no limit on the number of cable channels, social media platforms, search engines, or browsers. Anyone can create more. Unlike with RF spectrum there are no fundamental physical limits.
  - georgeecollins 5y ago
    Sure, go start a browser or a cable channel and tell me how that goes.