The topic of regulating political activity on the internet leads to the whole question of public discourse
Seems what we ultimately want as a society, are not particular laws and regs, but a feeling-space that is trustworthy, sane and beneficial to all
As the country was formed, various domains of public activity and discourse were carved out and laws, governing bodies, standards and ethics were evolved for each
Each domain was to focus on public speech of a different kind, with a different purpose, creating a harmonious balance
Each domain is more or less non-partisan by design; has rules about how money moves through it and who that money may come from; and has formalized, publically monitored relations with other domains
Our Domains:
- Government: Promote and implement policies; allow open debate of upcoming laws; governed by bureaucratic regs and agencies
- Civil Society (Foundations, think tanks, advocacy groups): Advocate for philosophical positions; governed by non-profit laws
- Parties and Campaigns: Trying to win; few rules apply, but expectation of showing up at debates; governed by FEC, etc
- Media: Report facts objectively and make defensible editorial comments; governed by journalistic ethics, expectation of willingness to document sources, retract false assertions, etc
- Entertainment: Say what you want to stimulate people; governed by ratings boards
- Religion: Talk about fundamental values and beliefs; policed by peer-groups of religious leaders
- Science: Pin down 'facts'; governed by scientific method, testing and peer review
- Education: Grow people's minds; governed by senior academics, peer review, etc
- Business: Making money; governed by commerce clause, laws on monopoly, honest advertising, product liability, consumer protection, etc
- Individual Citizens: Free speech at home, in a bar, in the park; say what you want with little need to defend it; very free of policing
This division was somewhat arbitrary and the institutions or bodies of ethics and expectations governing each were also arbitrary
Different societies through history have organized it differently
Domains and their relations are forms, and forms are symbols
They symbolize a willingness to work together on the basis of respect, trust, honor
Without that symbolism, the forms would be meaningless
Again, what you really want is not a particular form, but is a feeling of harmony and balance, where all needs are taken care of
Yet if you have no form and anybody does anything they want anytime they want, you could as easily get hatred and violence as anything good
You might say, well, if people want the good, the marketplace will lead the good to outsell the bad
But this ignores the fact that when the society becomes ultra-chaotic, like a failed state, the citizens fall into depressed, overwhelmed internal states and begin to simply act out their despair
Making the good decisions that the marketplace theory promotes, is partly a function of having a form, a shape to the marketplace, that people agree is decent, reasonable, worth trusting
This allows people to sleep at nite and make plans for tomorrow
Of course it always changes, but form is simply a convenient, useful way of relating to change so as to support the good
Over the last 40 years or so, dramatic changes in technology, average educational level, wealth, connectivity have allowed adept and super-empowered individuals with murky motives to corrupt the domain model for discourse in this country
People have straddled, mixed and merged these activities, obviously with the purpose of acquiring power, wealth and domination of the discourse
Some coordination of discourse across domains has always happened in societies throughout time, eras are guided by ideas and players who promote and elaborate them
Yet, when such coordination seems to have the intent of destroying the moral basis of the country, destroying the meaning of democracy, and basic freedoms, then people rightly are concerned
There has been a 'culture of corruption' going on, which disrespects the sane boundaries established between these domains
This culture makes sure to be honest enough that its actions are difficult to prosecute in a court of law; but no more honest than that
It substitutes fear-based and gratification-based logic for truth and legitimacy
People are growing tired of this and two trends emerge in response
New technologies seem to offer the possibility of giving every citizen the same tools that insiders have had for a couple of generations, allowing each of us to straddle the domains of discourse and reacquire lost political effect
A wholesale reconstruction of the domains and their interactions seems possible, a new notion of democracy could be born
The technology response perhaps places less emphasis on formal rules to ensure public morality
It relies on a culture super-empowered individuals to churn itself into a more purified state
It counts on hyper-competition among many powerful players to force a more balanced outcomes
Campaign laws and all other morality-in-the-public-square laws, are an alternative attempt to reconstruct the collective vision of how these domains should legitimately interact
They are based on an idealistic belief that the vast majority of citizens actually want honesty and morality as a basic social framework
It assumes people don't only want to be empowered sufficiently to compete with dishonest actors, although they might indeed like equal access to such power
That instead they want an actual defined culture of honest discourse and respect for appropriate roles for the various domains that make up a society
It believes that the structure and values of the society are important to people, because they don't necessarily want to have to continuously fight tooth-and-nail in order to get reliable good outcomes
Given the reality of rapidly expanding technology, powerful elites and average citizens have the tools to undermine any social compact, law or regulation
So, it would seem the forces of reform and regulation cannot succeed
Yet, the people in the end will get what they want, and if they do indeed want enforcement of orderly interactions in public discourse, there will be enforcement
We are in the process of birthing some kind of new social compact, that will necessarily need a deeper, more conscious buy-in from each citizen, in an age of hyper-empowerment; but will also most likely involve a reaffirmation of sane forms and of the real symbolic meaning of these forms, so that people feel like there is a tangible system with real continuity they are commiting themselves to