How About We Play Fair in 2021?

We need referees for the internet age

Jan M Flynn
Jan 4 · 5 min read
Image for post
Image for post
Image by Free-Photos from Pixabay

Long, long ago, in the 1990s, we spoke of the Information Highway

In 1995, William Gibson breathlessly compared the advent of the Internet to the birth of cities:

“It’s really something new; it’s a new kind of civilization. And of course the thing I love about it is that it’s transnational, non-profit — it isn’t owned by anyone — and it’s shape is completely user driven.”

That was a nice dream, wasn’t it?

In a March 2020 interview on NPR’s All Things Considered, William Gibson lamented that the Internet hasn’t exactly matched the cyberspace he envisioned in his landmark novel Neuromancer:

“Cyberspace, as described in Neuromancer, is nothing at all like the Internet that we live with, which consists mostly of utterly banal and silly stuff.”

We carry in our pockets devices with more computing power than NASA had at its disposal when it sent men to the moon. And what do we do with them? We replace conversations with texts. We Instagram photos of our pets, or our outfits, or our sandwiches. We tweet our opinions into a vortex of echoing beliefs that instantly spews them back at us with increasing vitriol. We’re more easily manipulated than ever.

Does it have to be this way?

Today’s news outlets and today’s Internet mean everybody gets their own truth. And they don’t trust anybody else’s.

Meanwhile, totalitarian governments haven’t gone anywhere. Authoritarianism feeds on the energy of splintering factions and mistrust, offering a weird balm, a mixture of anger, victimization, and certainty as a bulwark against the terrifying worldview swirling outside our separate spheres. Our only sense of safety lies in our ability to pigeonhole those on the outside: Republicans, Democrats, MAGA-hat-wearing rednecks, cancel-culture libtard snowflakes.

Remember the Fairness Doctrine?

The point was to expose viewers or listeners to more than one (narrow) point of view. The underlying assumption was that this was a good thing for civil discourse, for society, for democracy. The policy didn’t say how the different viewpoints had to be presented: they could be opinion pieces, editorials, news segments, public affairs broadcasts — it was up to the outlets.

The Fairness Doctrine, in its day, had broad support. The ACLU was in favor of it. So was the NRA. The Supreme Court upheld it in a 1969 case, Red Lion Broadcasting v FCC. So what happened? Very long story short, the 1980s anti-regulation Reagan Revolution happened to it. At the same time, the Information Highway promised unlimited access to unlimited perspectives, thus eliminating the concern about public opinion being skewed by a few, powerful special interests.

So here we are, without a whistle

And we can all see where it has led.

What if we developed a new Fairness Doctrine for the Internet age?

The Brookings Institute opines that an attempt to engineer a fairness rule for the Internet is futile and “doomed to backfire.” The worry is that it would amount to vastly increased government control over free speech:

Under the First Amendment, each social media platform or other privately-operated web site is free to welcome a diverse range of viewpoints or, alternatively, to preferentially welcome viewpoints from either the political right or the political left . . . the internet as a whole certainly does not prevent users from accessing multiple viewpoints.

Yeah, but that’s not what happens. And free speech does have limits. You can’t holler “Fire!” in a crowded theater just because you feel like it; social media sites can’t promulgate child porn or direct threats to individuals. The corporations and interests who profit from steering public discourse should also bear some responsibility for doing so.

As we enter the post-Trump era, all of us weary of the shrieking rhetoric, the fear, the distrust, surely we can do better. We can’t play this game without rules, nor without referees. We have to find a way to preserve our freedom of speech without letting our public discourse devolve into a screaming match.

What will that look like?

All of those things will take cooperation and a unity of will. Not from all of us, but enough of us. And that’s much more likely to happen if we can listen to eah other. Without the echo chamber.

Please, discuss. I truly want to know what you think.

The National Discussion

The home of opinions on American politics and policy.

Jan M Flynn

Written by

Writer & educator. The Startup, Writing Cooperative, P.S. I Love You, The Ascent, more. Award-winning short fiction. Visit me at www.JanMFlynn.net.

The National Discussion

The home of opinions on American politics and policy.

Jan M Flynn

Written by

Writer & educator. The Startup, Writing Cooperative, P.S. I Love You, The Ascent, more. Award-winning short fiction. Visit me at www.JanMFlynn.net.

The National Discussion

The home of opinions on American politics and policy.

Medium is an open platform where 170 million readers come to find insightful and dynamic thinking. Here, expert and undiscovered voices alike dive into the heart of any topic and bring new ideas to the surface. Learn more

Follow the writers, publications, and topics that matter to you, and you’ll see them on your homepage and in your inbox. Explore

If you have a story to tell, knowledge to share, or a perspective to offer — welcome home. It’s easy and free to post your thinking on any topic. Write on Medium

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store