There's a genuine problem with our epistemic environment, though. Changes in technology have led to a situation where there is now more available information than a reasonable individual can sort through and act on, but we haven't yet developed the social institutions needed to contain and regulate that flow. I agree that drawing off too much water could cause downstream droughts, but right now we've got a flood to deal with.

Maybe the FCC's existing and historical regulatory tools are a bad choice for this operation; I'm perfectly willing to believe that, but I don't think it's much of a contribution to the conversation to just say so and leave it at that. Some kind of tool is clearly needed, and without considering the specific character of the tool in question, we won't be able to make a better one. This essay sure does mention several examples of the "news distortion" standard being abused, but it doesn't go into any detail on how and why that abuse was possible. What actually happened? What even is this standard that we're talking about? What does the regulation say, and how does the enforcement history affect how we read it?

Expand full comment