

If the FCC Had Regulated the Internet - cwan
http://www.slate.com/id/2279106/pagenum/all

======
T-R
I was really hoping for a thoughtful piece discussing a situation where
requiring that infrastructure owners not discriminate by content had an
overall negative effect.

Sadly, the author just Glenn-Beck-style associates rules requiring fair play
with regulation of speech and business decisions because they both can be
called "regulation", and goes on to describe how fascism can stifle the growth
of good ideas.

tl,dr: Author sets up straw man; author attacks straw man; author concludes
all regulation is evil.

------
wizardishungry
Holy Libertarian hyperbole:

He convinces the FCC to require right-wing channels to link to left-wing
channels, Christian channels to link to Muslim channels, vegetarian channels
to link to meat-eating channels. "The [linking] icon itself would not require
anyone to read anything," Sunstein writes. "It would merely provide a signal,
to the viewer, where a different point of view might be consulted." The FCC
approves Sunstein's plan for a "Fairness Doctrine" for the online world, and
the FCC sets up a new Bureau of Links to enforce the practice.

~~~
gojomo
The FCC once did enforce a 'fairness doctrine' on broadcasters, and some
Democrats occasionally discuss bringing it back.

Meanwhile, some jurisdictions (moreso in Europe) have considered creating a
government-enforced 'right of reply', forcing websites to link to opposing
viewpoints. And Obama advisor Sunstein has at times advocated (but wisely
pulled back from) the same cross-linking and 'sidewalks' mandates that Shafer
imagines being implemented:

[http://techliberation.com/2009/01/08/what-impact-will-
cass-s...](http://techliberation.com/2009/01/08/what-impact-will-cass-
sunstein-have-on-obamas-internet-policy/)

So Shafer's scenario isn't that far-fetched.

------
nathansobo
This is silly.

