• TechyDad@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    96
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    The biggest thing that I can see that needs to be done would be shutting down “news” organizations like FOX News, OAN, and Newsmax. Also, breaking up online movements like Q where blatant misinformation is spread as if it’s proven truth.

    Now, HOW you do that without massive first amendment violations, I don’t know. You would also need to be careful how it’s structured because that could easily be used to shut down anyone left of center should a Republicans take the presidency/control Congress.

      • Jaysyn@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Since that is over actual airwaves, reinstating the Fairness Doctrine would fix that very fast.

          • Jaysyn@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Would be unconstitutional. That’s private property, not a limited public good, like radio spectrum.

            You’d have to nationalize the US communications grid including private satellites. I’d actually not mind that if the US government didn’t have such a terrible record on privacy invasion to start with.

            • RojoSanIchiban@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              You’d have to nationalize the US communications grid including private satellites

              No you don’t. Legislation to extend regulations to content doesn’t require ownership of the equipment. The FCC doesn’t own radio towers. It will absolutely require a constitutional amendment to clarify first amendment boundaries and protections, but we’re already talking about pie in the sky as is.

              Edit: On the aside, I’d rather deal with the “privacy war” than the wild west insanity that is fox news, OAN, et al.

    • snekerpimp@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      35
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Education and critical thinking skills. Which is why they want to defund public schools so all children can be indoctrinated in “Christian” private schools.

      • TechyDad@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        A lot of social media and sites with algorithms are problematic. They tend to steer people to content that’s more and more radical in nature. You start out with innocuous stuff, but the more extreme the content, the bigger the reaction, and thus the algorithm will guide the user to more of that content. (Ryan George illustrated this perfectly: https://youtu.be/x1aZEz8BQiU?si=g3xw0tbDV-4vSyCH )

    • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      There’s no need to shut them down:

      “The fairness doctrine of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, was a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that fairly reflected differing viewpoints. In 1987, the FCC abolished the fairness doctrine”

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine

      • TechyDad@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        1 year ago

        The problem, even if we reinstated this, is that this applied to broadcast only. This wouldn’t apply to cable channels. Neither would it apply to Internet groups. Both of those would still be free to spout full blown lies and conspiracy theories dressed up as “news.”

        • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          It would definitely need updating to include cable, things have changed a lot since 1987. As for the internet, I don’t see how that could be enforced other than to classify sites as publishers and make them liable for the content they host.

          • grue@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            The entire legal basis for it was the notion that the FCC was entitled to regulate the radio spectrum because it’s a scarce resource. The FCC has no authority to regulate cable or the Internet.

            • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              The FCC has no authority to regulate cable or the Internet.

              “The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent agency of the United States government that regulates communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable across the United States. The FCC maintains jurisdiction over the areas of broadband access, fair competition, radio frequency use, media responsibility, public safety, and homeland security.”

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commission

              It’s true that the FCC doesn’t regulate internet content, that’s why classifying sites as publishers would be useful. We would have the same legal tools that apply to newspapers.

              • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Has their ability to regulate communication that doesn’t involve any public resources ever been tested in court?

                You could easily argue that things like ISPs require content-neutral regulations, but for regulating content there needs to be a pretty damn solid justification for why the First Amendment can’t apply as written. For public airways the bandwidth is limited enough that allowing some speech necessarily comes at the expense of other speech, but that justification is very shaky for cable and satellite TV, and it completely falls apart for internet services. It would be comparable to the federal government trying to regulate the content of private correspondence through the postal service.