What is interesting is the loss of the "commons," here. Even if we brought back the fairness doctrine, in practice the fragmentation of the media landscape would still drive a different style of discourse. We aren't going to go back to 3 national news broadcasts.

And the justification for the doctrine extended the same way. It didn't regulate newspapers for example. Because the airways aren't privately owned, but rather leased from the public, the doctrine was considered more a regulation of this common space, than a regulation on speech on general.

The Fairness Doctrine existed only because broadcast spectrum was finite. It never applied to other types of media.

You are right. But there is still a finite radio broadcast spectrum we don't apply this to, and a finite number of cable channels, a finite number of social media platforms, search engines or browsers with a million users, etc.

I am not saying something like that is a good idea. I am saying that to throw your hands up and say nothing can be done is not accurate. A lot of times people say you can't regulate a thing because you can't regulate every possible instance. But by that logic we shouldn't have stop signs because people run through them everyday. Yet stop signs are important.

There is no limit on the number of cable channels, social media platforms, search engines, or browsers. Anyone can create more. Unlike with RF spectrum there are no fundamental physical limits.

Sure, go start a browser or a cable channel and tell me how that goes.