The legacy OTA broadcasters were granted exclusive licenses to large chunks of a scarce natural resource (RF spectrum). Their public service obligations are essentially their payments on those licenses. Cable channels are under no obligation to carry news programming, for example, and are allowed to swear.

I don't think it holds up to say that because the internet is not a scare natural resource, rules have to be updated as situations evolve in multiple areas.

If you want to apply a rule like "speech must be a net positive for society according to me" in the general case, the rule you need to update is the first amendment. It's specifically because of that spectrum gift that the government can be so aggressive about public good with OTA broadcasters. Speech doesn't come under government control just because it has a large audience or is culturally important.

@closeparen is not saying "because" they were just explaining the legacy scenario that got us to the classifications used today

>The legacy OTA broadcasters were granted exclusive licenses to large chunks of a scarce natural resource (RF spectrum). Their public service obligations are essentially their payments on those licenses.

This seems like pretty strong implications of cause and effect. Doing something as a payment in return of a service (license).

I did not read as strong implication. Some but not strong.

the word "essentially" and my a-priori knowledge that OTA broadcasters have to also pay cash-money for the license and have other obligations.

I see the scares-resource as one of the many factors for OTA classifications different from webApp.

Fixes for this issue have to cover many legacy and many new complex factors

FCC regulations are pretty antiquated. Imagine not being able to curse on social media, for example.

I believe the correct model for large social media platforms (for example above 10m users) is that of a telecom provider.

Comcast can't block CNBC or Fox and at the same time nobody assumes that Comcast is responsible for view expressed on the networks it carries

Pretty sure comcast is legally allowed to block CNBC or Fox.

Cable channels regularly get dropped from lineups due to disputes over fees. Here’s a recent example of NBC in threat of being dropped. https://www.pressherald.com/2019/10/02/spectrum-may-drop-nbc... Edit: that link has a paywall, but here’s another discussing cable channels being dropped https://www.post-gazette.com/ae/tv-radio/2016/02/14/TV-Q-A-D...

There’s no general right to force cable providers to have your cable channel.

Comcast pays to carry CNBC and Fox content. They can freely decline to pay the content providers what they wish and drop their content. It is not an uncommon occurrence.

Fox and NBC cannot provide air time for one political campaign and deny air time for an opposing political campaign. Twitter is more like Fox and NBC rather than Comcast.

Twitter is nothing like Fox and NBC, unless they've managed to pick up a broadcast license without anyone noticing.

Fox and NBC are only required to provide political campaigns equal access because of their licenses to exclusive use of portions of the public spectrum.

Cable channels like CNN and Fox News don't use this spectrum, and thus don't have the same requirement. Twitter is more like a cable channel than a broadcast station.