bob_brightburn t1_itgtrw7 wrote on October 23, 2022 at 3:30 PM

Media used to be regulated, in exchange for the networks’ permission to use the airwaves, a public resource.

since TCP/IP was developed using taxpayer dollars the foundational protocol should be considered part of the Commons and massive social networks should be subject to laws regulating disinformation, propaganda, and fraud.

The libertarians among you are aghast of course. But the quality of life has demonstrably degraded with the rise in unfettered social media, coupled with the gutting of the Fairness Doctrine.

The narrative of “the only good system is an unregulated system” is a lie that benefits a few at the expense of the many.

elvenrunelord t1_ithejs4 wrote on October 23, 2022 at 5:49 PM

The quality of life has degraded due to social media? I'd argue its unrestrained inflation and greed by the wealthy and connected that has the angle on degradation of quality of life.

Social media on the other hand has been nothing but a net positive to me because I use it to follow topics I am interested in and don't believe a GODDAMN thing that is said about politics other than if it comes out of the horse's mouth...and even then its likely to be a lie because that is what politicians do..... LIE.

You want to restore quality of life in regards to freedom of speech.....make it a criminal offense with mandatory jail time plus lifetime ban from politics for any politician to tell the public a lie.\

This is the path to a better political arena.

bob_brightburn t1_iujnu2e wrote on October 31, 2022 at 8:54 PM

I have been posting thoughts similar to your 3d paragraph too and totally agree. More generally : anyone posting unsubstantiated or demonstrably false disinformation presented as fact, with the intention of influencing policy, should be held accountable.

the only place i differ with is about the role of social media - maybe better for you because you feel you have more choices but it also has been weaponized by those who are most responsible for the issues in your first paragraph

anyway we agree more than we disagree

BullsLawDan t1_ituqulh wrote on October 26, 2022 at 1:38 PM

>coupled with the gutting of the Fairness Doctrine.

The line you're pushing would be more convincing if you knew what the Fairness Doctrine was, or what it actually did, or its history, or the fact that it isn't coming back without a repeal of the First Amendment.

bob_brightburn t1_iuba73w wrote on October 30, 2022 at 12:27 AM

What makes you think I don’t know? Odd. Let me explain again: the spectrum is a public good, part of the Commons. The DEAL with the media outlets was this: “We the Gov’t will allow you to use part of the public Commons but there will be rules. If you don’t want rules, then you can’t use the airwaves.“ Then far-right radical media whined that it wasn’t “fair” and argued 1st amendment.

I suggest you try the following experiment: walk into the middle of a shopping mall. Scream at the top of your lungs that you set a massive fire and everyone must RUN! RUN! And that you have a gun and you’re going to blow everyone’s head off.

Tell your lawyer to use a 1st amendment defense and get back to us, let us know how it goes.

BullsLawDan t1_iui7rnc wrote on October 31, 2022 at 3:05 PM

>What makes you think I don’t know?

Because you think it's responsible for a degradation in "the quality of life," rather than recognizing that it was always limited and did not work in the first place.

>Let me explain again: the spectrum is a public good, part of the Commons. The DEAL with the media outlets was this: “We the Gov’t will allow you to use part of the public Commons but there will be rules. If you don’t want rules, then you can’t use the airwaves.“ Then far-right radical media whined that it wasn’t “fair” and argued 1st amendment.

LOL, no.

It wasn't a deal with "media outlets." It was a "deal" (an FCC regulation) with broadcast frequency license holders, because they leased spectrum from the FCC (the public).
It did not apply to print, and would/could never apply to other forms of media such as cable and the internet. Because the First Amendment prohibits such regulation on content. As I said.
Far right media whined?? They existed long before the Doctrine was repealed and continued to exist after. It didn't prevent far-right media networks. Argued 1st Amendment? Yeah that's actually the only argument needed, since the 1st Amendment prohibits it from applying to other forms of media and today would probably also prevent it from even applying to broadcast, considering the current realities of the spectrum. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service said as much.
You said earlier that TCP/IP was "part of the commons" and that would allow us to regulate social media. Nonsense. Even if, somehow, there was a finding that TCP/IP could be regulated as broadcast spectrum once was in the manner of the Fairness Doctrine, that would be at the level of backbone internet providers or maybe ISPs. But of course, ISPs already have "balance" of the sort of the Fairness Doctrine - they all allow users (in the US) to access the entire internet. And there's no limits on TCP/IP, it's not a scarce resource. So again, this shows you don't really know what the Doctrine was or how it was justified.

>I suggest you try the following experiment: walk into the middle of a shopping mall. Scream at the top of your lungs that you set a massive fire and everyone must RUN! RUN! And that you have a gun and you’re going to blow everyone’s head off.

>Tell your lawyer to use a 1st amendment defense and get back to us, let us know how it goes.

I'm not sure what this is supposed to be a reference to. A shopping mall is private property, they can remove people for being a disturbance if they want. Just as media companies - Facebook, Reddit, Twitter - can remove users who are a disturbance. And, thanks to Section 230, they can do so quickly and without facing frivolous liability for those decisions.

If this is some kind of "fire in a crowded theater" reference, LOL.

bob_brightburn t1_iujn121 wrote on October 31, 2022 at 8:48 PM

1 - “spectrum holders” = “media” in shorthand

2 - understood it never applied bla bla, but at the time FD was in effect bcast was massively the primary news source for mass audiences 3 - huh???

4 - nonsense? my turn to LOL, human politics run on stories and narratives, not fact. You can dig up enough words to justify anything including bullshit like “money = speech” so why not “Internet protocols belong to the people” and go from there. It’s a thought experiment: taxes paid for it, let’s have the discussion that regulation up and down the stack is reasonable

5 - so, you going to go for it? Remember “It’s free speech!!” yea fire in a theater. same as “stop the steal!” “vaccines are poison!” and the rest of the rightwing lies and propaganda. It needs to be stopped, and by any available means.