In accordance with the 4th amendment, stricter laws are required to ensure that the US government is not using private data illegally to spy on and prosecute Americans without a warrant.

Federal and state governments should only retain the minimum level of personal data necessary to conduct specific business.

Private companies should be required to disclose specifically to who your private data is being sold to.

Many have drawn a line from the fall of the Fairness Doctrine, a regulation that used to require news stations to air opposing views on policy positions, to the problems we’re facing today. While the Fairness Doctrine made sense during its time, a 21st Century Fairness Doctrine would need to reflect the reality of 24 hour news, algorithmic bias, and blatant dishonesty in the media. And so, we aim to create one, called the Civil Discourse Doctrine.

The Civil Discourse Doctrine starts by regulating the algorithms that fill our feeds and minds to ensure that civility is given as much of a chance as division. We must ensure that all voices are heard, not just those that appeal to the preferred ideology of whoever has the money to buy the website. We aim to work with experts in social media algorithms to create a set of standards that all companies must follow in their content delivery algorithms in order to ensure fairness and sanity are the norm, not the exception.

The Civil Discourse Doctrine would also have a return to the rules that produced a balanced diet of views by requiring news stations to air dissenting voices. Additionally, 24 hour news stations would be required to run a ticker that is controlled by another broadcast company of similar stature that may air fact checks to stories in real time to ensure that lies are called out as they are spoken. Social media algorithms would also be required to deliver a balanced diet of opposing viewpoints in the form of content delivery. In addition, the FCC would be empowered to pursue action against broadcasters who have shown repeated, blatant, and verifiably false information.

In order to have a civil discourse, we have to all be on the same page about reality

Social Media algorithms have become immensely important for how the public discourse is shaped. These algorithms, especially when coupled with the power of AI and a political agenda by those that own them, create the capability of people with enough wealth to buy their way into shaping public opinion. How meaningful is freedom of speech if your digital speech never comes across someone’s dashboard because it triggered the algorithm to not share it?

Additionally, research has shown that content delivery algorithms are designed to show you the most divisive, hate-inducing content they can find in the name of drumming up engagement and therefore advertising revenue. This is a poison pill to both our civil society and our sanity.

And lastly, we have a problem of our broadcasting institutions becoming untrustworthy. The largest news network in the nation defended itself in court by saying that no reasonably intelligent person would believe it’s actually news, yet they still broadcast and millions of people take them very seriously. Democracy dies with the truth. The social contract we make with broadcasting agencies is that they are given vast legal protections in exchange for providing us with the truth. Up until recently, they mostly upheld their end of the bargain. We need to ensure that when these institutions intentionally and repeatedly fail at their duty to truth, there are consequences.

We believe our right to privacy is fundamental to an engaged, fearless, and productive public life. The 4th Amendment gives us the right, now it is our duty to protect our privacy and the privacy of those most vulnerable from state and corporate intrusion. The right against unreasonable search and seizure has come under attack, not by one fell swoop, but rather by the ever-encroaching use of mass surveillance technology, data farming, and AI by actors both state and private.