3 ms·
The argument for allowing the government to regulate broadcast media is that the electromagnetic spectrum it uses is a limited public resource which needs to be
by krapp 3y ago
The argument for allowing the government to regulate broadcast media is that the electromagnetic spectrum it uses is a limited public resource which needs to be curated for the public good. That argument doesn't apply to the internet - no matter how big Youtube gets there is always room for a competitor, we're not going to "run out of internet."
I would agree that the network as a whole might comprise a public resource, although I would also disagree vehemently with letting the government regulate speech on it like the FCC, but not individual sites and platforms.
- epgui 3y agoThen use a different example, like fiberop cable, power companies, telephone towers, or water streams or parks. I don't think the scarcity is the most important feature, I think it's the "public nature" of the thing. But how do we decide what is of a "public nature"?
- krapp 3y ago>I think it's the "public nature" of the thing. But how do we decide what is of a "public nature"? There is no "public nature." Simply allowing the public to use a service doesn't make it public. MacDonald's will let anyone walk in and order food, and it's ubiquitous, but that doesn't make it a public utility.
- paulmd 3y agohttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_accommodations_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_accommodations_in_the...
- krapp 3y agoNot in the sense that epgui it using it. They don't want Youtube to simply improve their accessibility and abide by nondiscrimination laws, they want it nationalized and regulated as a utility because of its popularity. Which I'm reasonably confident (despite not being a lawyer) is not a thing in the US. At least not yet.
- epgui 3y agoI can tell you that's not exactly what I want.