3 ms·
Well we can’t recall the voters, so there is no point in addressing them. They are a problem because in the US there used to be an FCC rule that said “if you c
by naikrovek 7mo ago
Well we can’t recall the voters, so there is no point in addressing them. They are a problem because in the US there used to be an FCC rule that said “if you call yourself a news program, you must tell the truth,” and that was overridden by the Supreme Court during Reagan’s term.
- raw_anon_1111 7mo agoNo there was never a rule about “telling the truth” the rule was “equal time”. So if one party said “vaccines keep people from dying” and the other party said “vaccines would cause you to grow extra limbs” you had to allow them both on. Second, it had nothing to do with the Supreme Court. The theory was that the airwaves belong to the public and the FCC has jurisdiction. It never applied to cable channels like FoxNews Third, the current FCC is going after broadcast networks for not being fair under the rule
- 1718627440 7mo ago> The theory was that the airwaves belong to the public and the FCC has jurisdiction. Now most things go over the shared network (InterNet) so that problem should have fixed it self, no?
- raw_anon_1111 7mo agoAirwaves are limited resource - especially spectrum suitable for broadcast. Two companies can’t share the same broadcast spectrum. The Internet is not a limited resource and not owned by the public and licensed to broadcasters. More than one company can lay cable. Do you really want the government policing what can be said on the internet?
- fragmede 7mo agoIt does already. Section 230 in the US isn't an unlimited get out of jail free card. Other countries have varying amount of policing, with differing levels of success and corruption. Spain, the UK, and China all come to mind here.
- raw_anon_1111 7mo agoSection 230 only has to do with defamation in this context not “misinformation”.