That's hand wavy, and definitely not a solid case for "had to."
And what regulatory pressure? The US Government has no business dealing with trolls. First Amendment.
This and other moves to get around limitations on regulating speech by using private agents is not going to do any real good, and will do considerable harm.
Valid, many would argue necessary, dissent is being suppressed in the same fashion, and all that happens to coincide with very high levels of government disapproval.
Anyone trying to make the case massive dislikes aimed at major news networks, POTUS and others has to also explain how doing that is not actually suppressing meaningful and justifiable disapproval. Hard case to make.
BTW: The demographics on morning TV are terrible under 60 years old.
Asking them to take the vaccine on a venue with a seriously dubious record is not going to be effective. A ton of dislikes happen because of how traditional media giants have used money, political influence and assistance from big tech to shove old school broadcast online as if somehow everyone ignoring them are the problem.
I tuned out years ago. I remember the day I saw, "the regime is the weapon of mass destruction" on the then spiffy FOX news scroller at the bottom of the screen.
Lies. War of choice for oil rooted in lies.
Things did not improve.
I began reading foreign press. Began reading indie journalism, and I began talking to others.
Every year since, the talking to others has improved. Understanding other people is very high value. Most of the division the same liars shove in the faces of anyone willing to watch is largely manufactured.
The reality is people have a lot in common. Their struggles are the same. We all run the same general way, and we all have the same basic needs.
One of the more serious reasons to very strongly dislike old media being propped up online is how they drive people to judge others, cultivate fear, blame and shame.
"Those other people"
"Teaching those other people a lesson"
"Both sides"
Controversy is often created too. Both sides is often used to justify putting someone, say a scientist, or doctor, up with a loon, or fear monger, idiot.
Then have a talking head get them yelling at one another...
Nobody needs them to do that and nobody is helped by them doing that.
Tons of people, wait for it...
Dislike them doing that.
Oh, and here is another one!
Objectivity. Neutral. Fair. Balance.
These, in addition to justifying manufactured controversy and "othering" to the point of otherwise reasonable people being unable to talk to one another, are all employed to help lie about bias.
The old media giants have a very clear economic bias and they lie about it, are not objective, and in general do not take feedback, or respond to fact checking by improving.
What they do is attack, use their position and economic weight to push critics off the stage... to own the conversation.
The bias in economic terms is generally neo liberal, neo conservative and aligned with the Washington Economic Consensus. They do not produce anything from the labor point of view. They do not amplify those voices.
Those points of view and voices are aligned with the interests of a majority of people.
Tons of reasons for dislikes and those giants could improve. They have not and are instead trying to push competition aside to garner and maintain the illusion of popularity and authority they trade on to produce "news" and commentary which is low value and not compelling or even helpful to a majority of people today.
Conflating trolls and crazies, zealots, and others with perfectly legitimate dissent, actual journalists doing actual journalism is all about manufacturing consent.
Reputable people publishing hard truths are being suppressed and that is no accident.
I could go on for pages here.
Given these things going on for decades, is there any wonder so many people dislike?
Nope.
And the worst?
That Surgeon General has made statements that undermine their own credence, on media that torched the public trust for years, and the people who called that out and who have used actual data from informed people doing real science and medicine get punished for "attacking" authorities, who are abusing their authority and squandering the public trust this whole mess we are told is necessary to improve on said public trust!
Did you see Jon Stewart do his new show?
He has access, is well liked, trusted, and has put these same people into a polite interview where he deftly gets them to say the quiet parts out loud.
Same thing the guy did years ago to Tucker Carlson.
I do not believe it will work now any better than it did then. Maybe the act gets polished up a bit, some particularly ugly stuff gets walked back and a few better conversations happen.
What it will do is get a new generation of people to question and amplify those who have been for some time now.
Good.
What we need here is not new and more spiffy ways to continue propagandizing people. Enough harm has been done.
What we need is non AD driven news and commentary that can speak to people, inform them, empower them and bring class awareness to action.
Big tech once presented that to the body politic. It was great. Necessary and very well liked because people saw and felt the value, understanding one another better and how corruption has gone unchecked for too long, doing too much harm.
Now that is over.
People looking for the next big thing need only follow this trail to find where the hearts and minds of good people will gather and talk about how to improve this mess for their families, themselves and that much better possible future out there.
