<story><title>Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump</title><url>https://www.facebook.com/4/posts/10112681480907401/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>technofiend</author><text>I know Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Reddit and all the rest &lt;i&gt;don&amp;#x27;t&lt;/i&gt; count as broadcast media but I feel like we got here in part because the 1987 elimination of FCC&amp;#x27;s fairness doctrine slowly allowed a shift in how we communicate with each other.&lt;p&gt;We went from specious claims and conspiracy theories being the subject matter of newsletters to their public broadcast to millions via talk radio ~and Fox News~, thus allowing people to descend into their own bubbles without ever having their views challenged.  Now people seem to rely on social media to give them the same experience.  When challenged too much people just pull up stakes to insulate themselves: voat, parler, and private facebook groups are only three recent examples.&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#x27;ll be interesting to see if whoever replaces Ajit Pai holds a different view on public intercourse over the airwaves.&lt;p&gt;Edit: Well as some people have pointed out, Fox News would have been exempt from the Fairness Doctrine as a cable network, i.e. it doesn&amp;#x27;t use the public spectrum.&lt;p&gt;As Wikipedia says &amp;quot;The channel was created by Australian-American media mogul Rupert Murdoch to appeal to a conservative audience, hiring former Republican media consultant and CNBC executive Roger Ailes as its founding CEO.&amp;quot;  So my personal view that Fox (among others) is responsible for a) exposing millions to fact-free content without opposing views and b) people got used to that and don&amp;#x27;t like it when it&amp;#x27;s challenged created the bubble we have today. I&amp;#x27;m wrong that the Fairness Doctrine would have prevented Fox, although it might have prevented talk radio.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>youeseh</author><text>Traditional TV and Print News Media gets the most eyeballs when they are controversial. Fox, CNN, MSNBC all do everything they can to coddle their specific segment. They phrase and comment on the news in a way that&amp;#x27;ll either excite their segment when they think it&amp;#x27;ll benefit and soften the blow whenever they think it&amp;#x27;ll hurt.&lt;p&gt;And no, none of them appeal to a general audience. The ads that each network  displays will tell you exactly who their specific audience is.&lt;p&gt;Twitter&amp;#x27;s audience is narrow: Most of the people I know (across countries, religions, genders, professions) do not have a Twitter account. So, they make decisions that suit their userbase, which is significantly narrower than Facebook&amp;#x27;s.&lt;p&gt;Facebook user base is closer to the general public. Unfortunately, their platform also enables an echo chamber. So, they have a tough job to do and in this regard. They have to be careful about whom to censor. Whatever they choose will be closer the law. I think they&amp;#x27;re trying their best.</text></comment>
<story><title>Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump</title><url>https://www.facebook.com/4/posts/10112681480907401/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>technofiend</author><text>I know Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Reddit and all the rest &lt;i&gt;don&amp;#x27;t&lt;/i&gt; count as broadcast media but I feel like we got here in part because the 1987 elimination of FCC&amp;#x27;s fairness doctrine slowly allowed a shift in how we communicate with each other.&lt;p&gt;We went from specious claims and conspiracy theories being the subject matter of newsletters to their public broadcast to millions via talk radio ~and Fox News~, thus allowing people to descend into their own bubbles without ever having their views challenged.  Now people seem to rely on social media to give them the same experience.  When challenged too much people just pull up stakes to insulate themselves: voat, parler, and private facebook groups are only three recent examples.&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#x27;ll be interesting to see if whoever replaces Ajit Pai holds a different view on public intercourse over the airwaves.&lt;p&gt;Edit: Well as some people have pointed out, Fox News would have been exempt from the Fairness Doctrine as a cable network, i.e. it doesn&amp;#x27;t use the public spectrum.&lt;p&gt;As Wikipedia says &amp;quot;The channel was created by Australian-American media mogul Rupert Murdoch to appeal to a conservative audience, hiring former Republican media consultant and CNBC executive Roger Ailes as its founding CEO.&amp;quot;  So my personal view that Fox (among others) is responsible for a) exposing millions to fact-free content without opposing views and b) people got used to that and don&amp;#x27;t like it when it&amp;#x27;s challenged created the bubble we have today. I&amp;#x27;m wrong that the Fairness Doctrine would have prevented Fox, although it might have prevented talk radio.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>lallysingh</author><text>Video is a terrible format for anything requiring the reflection and nuance of politics.  People need to read at their own pace, stop and make their own judgements, and re-read parts to make it all make sense.  Video is a firehose that keeps attention instead of letting you _think_.&lt;p&gt;Leave it for entertainment and deep documentaries.  If we had no more news channels and nightly programs, I think we&amp;#x27;d both be happier and better informed.</text></comment>