Anonymous ID: e520ab Nov. 14, 2024, 2:48 p.m. No.21986072   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>6090 >>6815

>>21985886 >>21986018 pb

 

>FCC is for censor ship and to try to only allow ownership of telecomm by Cabal connected descendants of ukrainigarch marxists from Kiev

That may be 100% true and it may be a shit agency of evil people that should be shut down!

 

But communications is clearly an interstate issue, and related to commerce. Its existence is not unconstitutional, is all I'm saying

Anonymous ID: e520ab Nov. 14, 2024, 2:57 p.m. No.21986128   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun

>>21986090

>they have no place in managing content

I understand your point of course, but I'd have to think about that a bit.

 

I do believe that social media has become the "public square" and that these utilities can and should be prevented from squashing free speech. Something like that might be done under the FCC.

 

It's a balancing act. Of course the "fairness doctrine" was bad, and it was great when it disappeared circa 1988-ish? leading to Rush Limbaugh

 

Zero regulation just puts the control over our freedoms in the hands of the billionaires, which is not what the Founders intended IMO