First Principles
At a “first principles” point of view – USUALLY the best thing for the U.S. Congress to do is “nothing.”
Arguably the “Founders” believed the same thing. Which is why the U.S. has the system of gov’ment that we have. Just from a practical “organizational behavior” the larger the group of people – the less likely you are to agree on anything.
The “wheels of gov’ment” are supposed to be slow moving and inefficient – remember the Founders’ goal was the preservation of individual liberty via the limiting of “gov’ment.”
SO anything that the gov’ment does do, shouldn’t be fast or drastic – again, just in general “government is best which governs least”
But then …
Of course the gov’ment isn’t just window dressing – they are supposed to do SOMETHING. e.g. In times of war trying to rule by committee is a recipe for disaster – which is why the POTUS is “Commander in Chief.”
In the Ancient Roman Republic – traditionally two “Consuls” were elected to “run” the Republic. The Consuls had full executive power, but each also had veto power over the other. This meant legislative stalemate was the norm and preservation of the status quo was achieved – which was kinda what the “powers that be” wanted.
BUT in times of emergency/war – i.e. when things needed to “get done” – a single person would be put in charge.
Fans of Ancient History will be familiar with the story of CIncinnatus – but I’ll move on – after pointing out that in peacetime it is always worth taking the time to examine the issue and “get it right” as opposed to “doing it fast.”
If it moves regulate it …
Ronald Reagan described the “government’s” view of the economy as: “If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”
Which is a great line – but hits on several big issues. The purpose of taxation tends to get “complicated” but isn’t important right now. However, REGULATION should be easier to agree about as far as “purpose” goes. (and subsidizing something is probably just another form of taxation)
In general “gov’ment regulation” should NEVER be punitory – i.e. protecting the consumer/individual SHOULD always be the purpose of regulation – NOT simply punishing a specific company/industry because it is politically expedient to do so.
From a practical point of view – that means government should do what individuals can’t do for themselves. SO things like controlling access to a limited resource (e.g. the old radio/television broadcast spectrum), or ensuring that drivers are not a danger to themselves or others (e.g. physical checkup requirements for CDL, or vision tests for driver licenses) are obvious candidates for regulation.
The form that regulation takes is up for debate – but regulating interstate commerce is obviously one of those functions the Feds are supposed to handle — but one more time “regulation” should not be “political punishment”, it should always serve the consumer.
Internet/Web/Walled gardens/Facebook…
The story of the “internet” can be told numerous ways – some of which are interesting, but not important right now.
(no matter how you choose to tell the “Internet story” – it didn’t just spontaneously appear, but it also wasn’t created by government bureaucrats.)
If we accept that “sharing information” (to one degree or another) is the point of ANY “network” then the “Internet” has been a great success story.
BUT you needed affordable personal computers AND the “world wide web” to make it useful to the average person.
(btw if the “internet” is the “highway” then the “web” is one type of vehicle using that highway – but not the ONLY type of vehicle)
For a lot of folks back in the early 1990’s “America Online” (AOL) was their first “information service.” AOL charged a monthly fee for access to their network – and bombarded the nation with 3.5″ disks and then CD-ROMs offering monthly free trials.
Then when the “web” happened – AOL started offering unlimited “Internet” access through their network. AOL still had a lot of “AOL network” content, so people might login to AOL and never leave AOL – this was kind of the “Walled Garden” internet (or if you logged into a local ISP – that homepage might have been your concept of the “web” in general).
(btw the AOL merger with Time Warner is probably one of the worst mergers of all time from a “combined value” view – i.e. the perception of AOL’s value was much greater than what they actually possessed)
Maybe the 1990’s could be called the “era of the portal.” The web may have offered access to vast amounts of knowledge – but finding anything was difficult. So “web directories” (like Yahoo! ) ruled the day. Then Google happened in the late 1998 – which is also another story …
Facebook is just another version of the “walled garden” – and they continue to add services trying to keep users on their platform. Of course the more users accept Facebook as “walled garden” the more Facebook can earn in advertising $$ – which once again, is neither good or bad, just good business
The important thing to remember is that Facebook is NOT the “Internet.”
Regulation, but how?
I’ve seen Facebook running ads (on Facebook) advocating changing the “Internet regulations.” This always comes across as self-serving as well as slightly pernicious – just because the regulations are older than Facebook doesn’t mean they need to be changed JUST for the sake of changing them.
The problem with “regulation for the sake of regulation” is that it tends to be counter productive. “Big business” actually benefits from “increased regulatory requirements” because it tends to cut down on innovation/disruptive competition.
“Bad regulation” simply reinforces the status quo and/or cements things in place preventing change. “Good regulation” will protect the consumer while encouraging growth/competition.
My personal preference would be to apply “newspaper”/media conglomerate standards to Facebook. Hold them accountable for “censorship”, create a truly independent “arbitration board” (not one bought and paid for by Facebook) – but don’t cement them in place as the status quo.
Regulation should not stifle whatever the “next big thing” may be …