>What makes you think I don’t know?

Because you think it's responsible for a degradation in "the quality of life," rather than recognizing that it was always limited and did not work in the first place.

>Let me explain again: the spectrum is a public good, part of the Commons. The DEAL with the media outlets was this: “We the Gov’t will allow you to use part of the public Commons but there will be rules. If you don’t want rules, then you can’t use the airwaves.“ Then far-right radical media whined that it wasn’t “fair” and argued 1st amendment.

LOL, no.

1. It wasn't a deal with "media outlets." It was a "deal" (an FCC regulation) with broadcast frequency license holders, because they leased spectrum from the FCC (the public).

2. It did not apply to print, and would/could never apply to other forms of media such as cable and the internet. Because the First Amendment prohibits such regulation on content. As I said.

3. Far right media whined?? They existed long before the Doctrine was repealed and continued to exist after. It didn't prevent far-right media networks. Argued 1st Amendment? Yeah that's actually the only argument needed, since the 1st Amendment prohibits it from applying to other forms of media and today would probably also prevent it from even applying to broadcast, considering the current realities of the spectrum. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service said as much.

4. You said earlier that TCP/IP was "part of the commons" and that would allow us to regulate social media. Nonsense. Even if, somehow, there was a finding that TCP/IP could be regulated as broadcast spectrum once was in the manner of the Fairness Doctrine, that would be at the level of backbone internet providers or maybe ISPs. But of course, ISPs already have "balance" of the sort of the Fairness Doctrine - they all allow users (in the US) to access the entire internet. And there's no limits on TCP/IP, it's not a scarce resource. So again, this shows you don't really know what the Doctrine was or how it was justified.

>I suggest you try the following experiment: walk into the middle of a shopping mall. Scream at the top of your lungs that you set a massive fire and everyone must RUN! RUN! And that you have a gun and you’re going to blow everyone’s head off.

>Tell your lawyer to use a 1st amendment defense and get back to us, let us know how it goes.

I'm not sure what this is supposed to be a reference to. A shopping mall is private property, they can remove people for being a disturbance if they want. Just as media companies - Facebook, Reddit, Twitter - can remove users who are a disturbance. And, thanks to Section 230, they can do so quickly and without facing frivolous liability for those decisions.

If this is some kind of "fire in a crowded theater" reference, LOL.

>coupled with the gutting of the Fairness Doctrine.

The line you're pushing would be more convincing if you knew what the Fairness Doctrine was, or what it actually did, or its history, or the fact that it isn't coming back without a repeal of the First Amendment.