[housel]

Fairness doctrine made sense at the time because broadcast spectrum was a very scarce resource. When cable and Internet are available to disseminate a broad range of viewpoints, it's no longer necessary for the FCC to be involved in regulating speech.

[0des]

> When cable and Internet are available to disseminate a broad range of viewpoints, it's no longer necessary for the FCC to be involved in regulating speech.

This opinion is more modern than the legacy "ill listen to any news even if it offends me"

FCC Fairness in boardcasting was not regulating speech by the way, it is closer to defining guidelines for the meaning of libel in the context of authoritative news broadcast on airwaves that at the time were federally regulated.

[munificent]

Human attention is still a scarce resource.

[asdff]

That brings in the assumption that there will be a perfectly heterogeneous and broad range of viewpoints and not perhaps just a handful of viewpoints that serve to enrich a few people. Looking at the world today we really don't have that broad of viewpoints despite all of our connectivity. Comment sections play out identically when a given topic comes up on different forums. You can predict what the positions will be without even opening the thread, and if you offer an opinion that runs counter expect to be snuffed out by the majority opinions that have real marketing dollars fueling them.

[0des]

> we really don't have that broad of viewpoints despite all of our connectivity

If anything, it is now easier to chop down any tall poppies or non conformists.