also there is still a problem with foreign based media outlets, I don’t have a way to deal with them at this point

implementation of my proposal would still require a minor revolution as the current system will not allow to elect a legislator that will pass these points:

1. Designate any newspaper, TV/YouTube/telegram channel, blog, Instagram account, etc with more than a 100k monthly views/impressions/followers/whatever as a public faced media.
2. Make the only allowed ownership form of these media outlets something like worker cooperatives.
3. Somewhat limit the ownership stakes so that no single member of this cooperative can make all the decisions.
4. The cooperative should have public financial records so the anyone can see where the revenue comes from.

This still does not protect against a billionaire buying out everyone in the cooperative through donations via multiple shell companies, but it is an improvement. What I like is that a large media holding can still exist under this scheme, but any corruption would be somewhat apparent.

what you are proposing is basically censorship, and state censorship is much easier to consolidate than the current billionaire-based one

you guys are hilarious, I used to live somewhere where this system exists and was designed with all these right reasons and now a social media post that conflicts with the state’s viewpoint will land you a 10 year sentence.

this seems like an especially likely outcome if designed in the current US political climate.

my point is regulation is not a solution and I don’t see any way to overcome this under capitalism. the only thing that might work is some kind of worker-operated cooperative like what the guys at 404 media are doing.

who do you expect is the person deciding what reporting is free and fair? is there a governmental regulatory body, created with the purpose of determining if the reporting was factual? shouldn’t the efficiency of this process be improved via pre-approving any media by this regulator to avoid fines?