NERW: The FCC in Authoritarian Times

[boombox4]

It's a standard feature of theocracies, and politics is now a religion for many in America. You alluded to the effect when you mentioned it being the national pastime for Puerto Rico. I wonder what gets higher Nielsens here these days: the World Series, or the State of the Union address.

Can't be emphasized enough, really. And it's not just the polarization, it's the chicken little nature of it. Everything is a catastrophe, everything is leading to an apocalypse.

And if you're in the middle somewhere, and criticize a political party for their genuine blunders, or other valid concerns, you are either a 'libtard' and a Leninist, or you're 'MAGA' and 'fascist'. There is no middle ground anymore.

 

[TheBigA]

While the First Amendment is not absolute, it's pretty strong. The real issue, then, is whether constitutionalism will prevail.

It depends on who is interpreting it. The current supreme court invented powers that don't exist in the constitution. It's up to them.

 

[Mark Roberts]

It depends on who is interpreting it. The current supreme court invented powers that don't exist in the constitution. It's up to them.

Answering this really requires going off-topic, and this thread has been challenging enough to deal with, but I'll just point out that the principle of judicial review was also inferred from the Constitution in 1803. That's what could end up being what's at stake, either in this case or some other. In other words, if the president defies a supreme court decision, what is the recourse then?

Not that the current supreme court is so admirable, and the chief justice (who is not a relative!) seems naïve about the direction his court has taken the country, but what is unclear is whether a weakened check on executive power is still possible or whether there will be no check at all.

Carr is an unserious person taking steps that could have serious consequences.

 

[TheBigA]

Carr is an unserious person taking steps that could have serious consequences.

I think he sees it very differently. He is taking these actions with purpose. They are not meant to be funny. They are meant to be consequential.

The people he represents feel they have been ignored and overlooked for too long. Now that they have power, they're going to use it.

 

[rparky54]

No doubt with carveouts and exceptions for those who bent the knee and kissed the ring. Zuckerberg is a particularly notable example of a fear-based response. As if he and his cohort didn't have enough already.


The winners will be lawyers. While the First Amendment is not absolute, it's pretty strong. The real issue, then, is whether constitutionalism will prevail.

Fakebook's new algorithm is to flood feeds with ads and suggested groups to the point that friend's posts don't show up, well maybe if you scroll down dozens of pages but who has time for that? It's now the social media equivalent of airing infomercials 24/7.

 

[Mark Roberts]

I think he sees it very differently. He is taking these actions with purpose. They are not meant to be funny. They are meant to be consequential.

I wasn't using the term "unserious" in the sense of "funny"; I was using it in the sense of being irresponsible. I would agree with you that he is being intentional.

The people he represents feel they have been ignored and overlooked for too long. Now that they have power, they're going to use it.

One of the hallmarks of our constitutional government has been constraints on power. A lot of hope is currently being placed in the judiciary to enforce those constraints. Carr is but one salient in the effort to destabilize the rule of law. The disheartening thing is that this is what a narrow majority of the voting public went for, though some may have thought Trump was just exaggerating for effect. They, too, may be appalled at the result. Too late.

 

[Mark Roberts]

Fakebook's new algorithm is to flood feeds with ads and suggested groups to the point that friend's posts don't show up, well maybe if you scroll down dozens of pages but who has time for that? It's now the social media equivalent of airing infomercials 24/7.

That's been going on for about a year. I hate it, and caused me to spend a lot less time with it. Hard to believe, but Nextdoor is even worse in that regard.

 

[tall_guy1]

That's been going on for about a year. I hate it, and caused me to spend a lot less time with it. Hard to believe, but Nextdoor is even worse in that regard.

Facebook seems to have a lot of "fake" stories from unheard of sources in the past year. Not sure why that's gotten worse as of late. Instagram doesn't have that problem so far

 

[Delete My Account]

Well, Zuckerberg has kissed up to the powers that be and thinks that a crappy product is an acceptable trade off for not being regarded as a "censor" by people who don't understand the 1st Amendment, so what's one to expect? We're now under power of an angry and vindictive bunch who want to let it all burn.

 

[yeoldeschool]

Which would be worthless if cable television and the internet are not a part of, and the FCC was heretofore not authorized to regulate the content of either. Fox News would have been launched with or without the Fairness Doctrine.

I cannot see how reactivating such a doctrine would work especially with linear news media already being in a very precarious position, unless the goal is to make it unworkable against their partisan nonlinear competition.

I've expressed identical sentiments on the censorship regulations applied only to over-the-air broadcasting but not to cable networks, internet streaming services, and so forth. Those rules are especially onerous and hypocritical considering that terrestrial radio is facing existential crises and that censorship makes the product seem inferior; all while the young, whom those regulations are intended to shield, are the main ones leaving radio in droves.

 

[Delete My Account]

I doubt young people would come back to radio if the profanity were allowed, any more than Howard Stern would come back to FM.

 

[leethalweapon]

Facebook seems to have a lot of "fake" stories from unheard of sources in the past year. Not sure why that's gotten worse as of late. Instagram doesn't have that problem so far

Facebook is a wasteland of misinformation.I hide so much fake material on a daily basis. I have all the major news apps, minus Fox News, because I want news, not editorial content. To me it appears that since January 20th, the standing of the big 3 (TV networks) is increasing because the “President” and his goons are being challenged.

 

[boombox4]

That's been going on for about a year. I hate it, and caused me to spend a lot less time with it. Hard to believe, but Nextdoor is even worse in that regard.

It's an example of desperation for revenue streams. It's been apparent on a lot of news sites, and other websites I've frequented, where it's ad city.

Last year I read an article called the 'crapification of the internet', where the journalist lamented how the web has become one big non-stop carnival of ads and what we used to call 'spam' in the early days of the WWW. I don't get a ton of ads on FB, but I do see my share of suggested posts, usually related to my interests (radio, rock music, etc.). I still see posts made by friends, but not as many as 7-8 years ago. Nextdoor, of course, is another story.

 

[bmasters1981]

What I worry about also is that this will be taken so far as to look in everyone's houses (everyone in America), and if you're even privately watching YouTube videos of old local and network newscasts, you will be threatened to switch over to the new Trump/Musk news, or be arrested as a traitor to the country (and that will be final).

 

[b-turner]

Surely you jest!

 

[bmasters1981]

Surely you jest!

Why do you think I'm jesting?

 

[CTListener]

Why do you think I'm jesting?

Because I can see you through my deep-state computer and I see you're laughing and draining a Bud Light as you type your "worried" concerns.

 

[bmasters1981]

Because I can see you through my deep-state computer and I see you're laughing and draining a Bud Light as you type your "worried" concerns.

Actually not-- I very rarely drink beer (only one every now and then); it's just my autistic imaginations making me see a Trump stooge breaking into someone's house who is watching, say, WNBC News 4 New York from the 80s on YouTube, and that Trump stooge telling them they have to switch to FOX News and start listening to Trump and Jesse Watters, among other things.

 

[cc333]

Actually not-- I very rarely drink beer (only one every now and then); it's just my autistic imaginations making me see a Trump stooge breaking into someone's house who is watching, say, WNBC News 4 New York from the 80s on YouTube, and that Trump stooge telling them they have to switch to FOX News and start listening to Trump and Jesse Watters, among other things.

I have similar fears, and I'm not autistic at all!

As far as I know, this is actually not unheard of in China. Their notion of privacy is quite different than ours because they're so obsessed with surveillance, and as a result, they will often detain people for such little things as looking the wrong way at someone or dressing in clothes that might be considered offensive, and people are sometimes disappeared without warning for less. Places like North Korea are even worse.

And to make this post relevant, virtually all media (what tiny portion isn't state owned, at least) has to walk on eggshells of fear that the communist party will punish them.

It's a scary place to be if you value individuality and freedom of thought, and I'm concerned that it could easily happen here under the right conditions. We're seeing evidence of it already, but it's impact on the general public's freedom and privacy is relatively limited so far.

c

 

[davideduardo]

I have similar fears, and I'm not autistic at all!

As far as I know, this is actually not unheard of in China. Their notion of privacy is quite different than ours because they're so obsessed with surveillance, and as a result, they will often detain people for such little things as looking the wrong way at someone or dressing in clothes that might be considered offensive, and people are sometimes disappeared without warning for less. Places like North Korea are even worse.

I've had this happen to me. I owned a regional coverage AM news/talk/novelas station in Quito. Ecuador, that did news that the government did not like. One morning, soldiers with really big weapons showed up at my home and gave me an order to be out of the country in 24 hours and stationed some of those troops outside to make sure I did not go into hiding or whatever.

My "partner" in the news coverage was the editor of an independent newspaper. He got the same visit, but he was taken away. He was never seen again.

I can tell you from my own experience that I see nothing in the United States today that even remotely resembles the situation I lived under in Ecuador. Folks can "awfulize" the change in administration all they like, but comparing it with actual situations such as you describe is just not factual.

I've also been in the overthrow of the government in Guatemala in 1963, worked with a station in El Salvador during the years of "el problema" and been in a building that was bombed by the Shining Path in Perú among other events I've been first hand at.

And to make this post relevant, virtually all media (what tiny portion isn't state owned, at least) has to walk on eggshells of fear that the communist party will punish them.

All media in China is state owned. In fact, indirectly, everything in China is state owned or controlled.

It's a scary place to be if you value individuality and freedom of thought, and I'm concerned that it could easily happen here under the right conditions.

The worst place I have ever been for "individuality and freedom of thought" is where I am now: California.

We're seeing evidence of it already, but it's impact on the general public's freedom and privacy is relatively limited so far.

That is not what I see. I just see sore losers.