We are living the consequences of not regulating the internet & social medis

[dlk]

After WWII, Americans clearly understood the dangers of fascism and the Fairness Doctrine was created as a response.

Fast forward a few decades and the Fairness Doctrine was repealed by political partisans.

After that, when the internet and social media came into being, special interests blocked any meaningful regulation.

And now here we are, drowning in a cesspool of racism, misogyny and fascism, with a dictator wannabe soon to be in the White House, with who really knows, actually running our country.

We have forgotten that evil never takes a holiday and we must be ever vigilant.

[JCMach1]

1. We will have to be willing to game and actively voter suppress

Targeted RW groups in coming elections.

Make the bastards cry and not want to leave the couch.

This campaign was lost through that voter suppression.

We wasted hundreds of millions while they shivved us in the back repeatedly and didn't notice the bleeding... All with guidance and help from the Russian experts.

[tritsofme]

2. The Fairness Doctrine was a response to scarcity of airwaves, not to regulate speech.

This version of the Fairness Doctrine you are describing is a post-hoc fantasy.

The answer here is not to throw the First Amendment out with the bath water.

Let’s not fight authoritarians with our own brand of authoritarianism.

[dlk]

4. The First Amendment does not protect all speech in all circumstances

Fascism, disinformation, racism, misogyny are tearing apart the fabric of our society.

[tritsofme]

8. I never made that claim. However everything on that list is certainly protected.

[dlk]

11. Perhaps, perhaps not...

[tritsofme]

12. Perhaps not what? What sort of speech are you arguing is not protected?

[TheProle]

6. Rec. Great post.

[MichMan]

3. For purposes of "fairness" on the internet, would you favor giving equal time to RW on DU?

[dlk]

5. You intentionally missed my point

Don’t be silly.

[tritsofme]

9. Perhaps your "point" has not been fully thought out?

Why would DU not be impacted from some sort of internet “fairness doctrine”?

[dlk]

10. I disagree

My point has been fully thought out, although it’s clear you don’t agree.

There are multiple ways to implement reasonable regulation on the internet and social media. However, all or nothing thinking solves nothing.

[tritsofme]

13. Speech restrictionists generally aren't great at thinking through the consequences of their actions.

I mean, it seems insane that we are thinking of ways to give the government, that Trump will soon be leading, more expansive control over speech.

[groundloop]

7. I'd say it in a slightly different way, but yes, all of the right wing media allowed vicious lies to be spread.

This is exactly what the problem is. The right wing media, including Fox, OAN, Sinclair, along with Facebook, Twitter, right wing podcasts, etc. etc., all financed by right wing oligarchs and Russia, have had a totally free pass at spreading misinformation. Unless we can counter that we're fucked.