this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2026
264 points (98.5% liked)
Technology
86757 readers
3253 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This isn't new. It's always been this way. He's just finally saying the quiet part out loud.
The FCC has always asserted governance over the airwaves on the basis that only so many frequencies are available so regulations are required to ensure their limited availability goes toward the advancement of the public good.
Because the airwaves are freely available to anyone with an antenna, one of the ways the FCC "ensures the advancement of the public good" is regulating what's allowed to be shown and said on television under the basis that children are watching at home.
The FCC has a long and varied history of enforcing censorship on the airwaves. It used to be that women's periods couldn't be mentioned, it used to be that actors had to keep one foot on the floor so they didn't show "a man and woman in bed together."
Violators have always been subject to fines and revocation of their license. Corrective action has always been at the sole discretion of the FCC. The only thing that's changed is how openly aggressive the FCC has been wielding their authority.
Historically, the FCC has always been regarded as having too much power, but they've always managed to avoid regulation by wielding it responsibly and conservatively and generally not pissing off the public to much. The current administration is highlighting why this has been a mistake.
It hasn't always been this way. They haven't always been able to say the quiet part out loud. In the past, if that had happened, they would've been punished for it and an example made of them, there would be public outcry and eventually some semblance of consequences. Nothing else substantial may have changed, they might have continued the exact same behaviors afterwards, but they stayed quiet and they were at least kept in check by the systems above them. This prevented others from seeing open corruption being tolerated and created a chilling effect on open corruption to put limits on it. It's not ideal: Keeping it quiet obviously doesn't eliminate it, but it does help control it.
Being able to say the quiet part out loud now is an escalation, and it will lead to even more severe escalations as more and more of the corruption and rot moves into the open. This is not a good sign and is not simply a sign of an organization or administration being too conservative and having too much power, this is not just being behind the times of social progress, this is something far beyond that, and it will continue to escalate.