Toward a New Fairness Doctrine
The social networks are out of control, and require regulation to protect users from scams, deep fakes, and violence.
It used to be that broadcast outlets had to serve the public interest. One of the ways in which they were required to do so was by making time for opposing views.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) was created by the Communications Act of 1934 to regulate the use of our collective asset, the electro-magnetic spectrum, on which broadcast signals ride. Commercial interests would have loved to own the spectrum but, taking a page from our National Parks System, which was also created to protect our collective resources (at that time from developers who sought to own and exploit the Grand Canyon), Congress enacted the Communications Act.
As the technologies of mass communication evolved, so did the regulatory power of the FCC, ultimately encompassing newer uses of the spectrum, like FM and television, as well as the higher frequencies that would be used for military, satellite, and wireless data transmission including smartphones.
Part of the concern Congress registered was that without intercession moneyed interests would monopolize—in the truest economic sense of the word—the spectrum, leaving noncommercial and military interests to fend for themselves against entrenched, powerful companies. To prevent this, they limited the number of stations a single entity could buy, settling in the Fifties on ownership caps that prevented any one company from owning more than a total of seven AM’s, seven FM’s and seven television stations—and no more than one per service in any given market.
There was also concern that the powerful new medium of radio would be used for propaganda purposes, just as it had been used in Nazi Germany, and by Nazi Acolytes in America like Father Charles Coughlin. A very real fear grew that unless we required equal time for opposing views on issues of import, the public would be exposed only to the information and opinions that the licensees—an exclusive club with wide ranging commercial interests—wanted them to hear. In 1949, with the advent of television, Congress created the Fairness Doctrine, a rule that required a full airing of issues from all sides. Broadcasters had to follow the letter of the law or risk losing their increasingly lucrative licenses.
At the dawn of the internet, while we were all full of hope for a truly accessible “citizens’ media,” I convinced myself that, considering all the new technologies to allow us to get around the traditional media gatekeepers, democracy would flourish and a new, level, playing field would render the Fairness Doctrine unnecessary and obsolete. In 2007, I went so far as to write an opinion piece for the Wall Street Journal, proclaiming a new age in media.
Boy, was I wrong.
It wasn’t long before sites consolidated into the few, hugely powerful entities that created the social networks we love to hate.
I’m now convinced that we need a new Fairness Doctrine.
YouTube, Tik Tok, Facebook, Instagram (also a Facebook company), and Twitter have tried, and failed, to police themselves. For a time, we figured they didn’t want to stop the often violent and hateful posts that threatened people and governments everywhere. Slowly, we came to understand their terrifying secret: they were, collectively, Dr. Frankenstein, and their monster spewing mis- and dis-information was out of control.
Industry hates government regulation. The car industry fought life-saving seat belts and airbags. The airline industry fought refund rules. The mining industry fought safety regs. Don’t get me started on Big Oil, Big Tobacco, and Big Pharma. Most consumers agree they’re better off for watchdog agencies that don’t have a dog in the for-profit fight.
The Tik Tok app is currently without equal. If you’re concerned about our kids amusing themselves at the cost of education and social skills, fix your gaze here. Note that domestic Chinese users under 14 see only educational posts (and probably a ton of propaganda) about history and science experiments they can do at home. Their screen time is limited by the app itself to 40 minutes a day.
Tristan Harris, a former Google exec and current tech ethicist who is the Co-Founder of Center for Humane Technology, guested on 60 Minutes recently, saying: “It’s almost like [Chinese company Bytedance] recognize[s] that technology’s influencing kids’ development, and they make their domestic version a spinach TikTok, while they ship the opium version to the rest of the world.” It shows when children in both countries are asked about their career aspirations. The #1 answer in America is “social media influencer.” The #1 answer in China is “astronaut.”
The argument against regulating these new media giants is that as commercial entities that are not riding on the public airwaves, government has no business interfering, but that concept gets more specious by the hour. We won’t be as heavy-handed as China, but cars, planes, drugs and tobacco all screamed for regulation, and their respective industries survived and continued to prosper. So will the social media purveyors.
©2022 Jon Sinton
Although I agree with you, I’m afraid it’s like pissing into the wind. We live in a media world of fragmentation. It’s like a Salvador Dali painting if you step back from it, you get a chance to see the whole picture but when you’re in the midst of it, it’s a lot of pixels demanding your attention on how to put it together. 
In a certain sense  the signal is the noise.
One of the problem isn’t misinformation. I called Malinformation.
 a purposely put together picture for malicious reasons.
Like scrambled pixels, all of this fragmentation scrambles the Contant in our brains. Like opiates. So the problem is addiction. 
So far as I can, tell, regulation isn’t the solution for detoxification. The best we can do is to encourage critical thinking. 
The critical thinking isn’t the money maker that addiction is.
The Internet might be a magical place, but when you pay attention to what’s behind the curtain, and who’s drawing it open and closed, it can be a real hell hole