Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Congress needs to support the marketplace of ideas

Opinion

Man maintaining telegraph wire

in 1847, the government decided to sell off the telegraph line between Washington and D.C. That decision limited the government's role in advancing the marketplace of ideas.

Frazier is an assistant professor at the Crump College of Law at St. Thomas University. He previously clerked for the Montana Supreme Court.

March 4, 1847, should be covered in every American history textbook. On that day, Congress assessed the profitability of the telegraph line it helped Samuel Morse build between Washington, D.C., and Baltimore. The ledger was bleak: Looking back at a recent year of messages, Congress had spent $3,925.14 to maintain the line and received just $413.44 in revenue from message fees.

So on that fateful day in 1847, the postmaster general, "confronted by a depressing condition of the postal finances and despairing of legislative support in prosecuting the [telegraph] enterprise as a part of the Postal Service, effected the sale of the Government line," as summarized by a postal commission in 1913.

A few decades later, the short-sightedness of that decision was as obvious as an elephant in a kindergarten classroom. By 1866, Western Union had managed to squeeze out all competition in the telegraph industry, form what would soon be a nationwide monopoly and limit the use of the telegraph to the elite. More importantly, Congress had failed in its mandate to “establish Post Office and Post Roads,” as set forth by Article I, Section 8, Clause 7 of the U.S. Constitution.


That oft-neglected power – the Postal Power – mandates that Congress provide Americans with a marketplace of ideas via the primary channel of information exchange. Let’s break that down. As of 1790, upon ratification of the Constitution, the postal network was the only means of distributing information. It carried the newspaper, magazines, pamphlets, letters, information on Congress, and on and on.

Under British rule, the government exploited the people’s reliance on the postal system by operating it in a way as to make revenue from their search for knowledge. In a major break with the past, the Founders pledged to run the network to encourage the spread of reliable news and to foster democratic discourse. With the passage of the Post Office Act of 1792, the Founders codified their radical vision of a democracy of informed citizens.

That act subsidized the distribution of newspapers and allowed publishers to exchange copies of their papers at no cost so that they could reprint the latest and most informative stories. Importantly, newspapers in that age had a reputation for being nonpartisan. Historian John Nerone suggests that though many of the Founding era papers had a partisan bent, many more avoided such skewed coverage.

In addition to increasing the supply of democratic information, the act also expanded the market itself. In 1788, the United States had just 69 post offices. Thanks to the decision by the Second Congress to directly build a larger market for ideas, that number rapidly expanded – 903 offices had been built by 1800; 4,500 by 1820, and more than 13,000 by 1840.

On the whole, the Post Office Act demonstrated Congress’ recognition of maintaining, expanding and improving the marketplace of ideas. Yet, in 1847, Congress forgot the importance of fulfilling that duty regardless of technological shifts.

In the years since, the marketplace of ideas has moved further and further away from government control. Many folks celebrate that independence as a good thing; yet, those same folks often fail to realize that we’ve simply shifted government control to corporate control. The latter, in my opinion, is far scarier for two main reasons. First, corporations will always be governed by a profit mandate. And, second, corporations are unaccountable to Average Joes and Janes via the ballot box.

As we enter a new technological paradigm in the Age of AI, we need to ask who should operate the marketplace of ideas. If this marketplace fails, then our democracy will be imperiled. That’s an outcome we cannot tolerate. Maintaining a marketplace of ideas isn't cheap (we learned that in 1847), but a deliberative democracy is worth every penny (a daily lesson).

Read More

Meta Undermining Trust but Verify through Paid Links
Facebook launches voting resource tool
Facebook launches voting resource tool

Meta Undermining Trust but Verify through Paid Links

Facebook is testing limits on shared external links, which would become a paid feature through their Meta Verified program, which costs $14.99 per month.

This change solidifies that verification badges are now meaningless signifiers. Yet it wasn’t always so; the verified internet was built to support participation and trust. Beginning with Twitter’s verification program launched in 2009, a checkmark next to a username indicated that an account had been verified to represent a notable person or official account for a business. We could believe that an elected official or a brand name was who they said they were online. When Twitter Blue, and later X Premium, began to support paid blue checkmarks in November of 2022, the visual identification of verification became deceptive. Think Fake Eli Lilly accounts posting about free insulin and impersonation accounts for Elon Musk himself.

This week’s move by Meta echoes changes at Twitter/X, despite the significant evidence that it leaves information quality and user experience in a worse place than before. Despite what Facebook says, all this tells anyone is that you paid.

Keep ReadingShow less
artificial intelligence

Rather than blame AI for young Americans struggling to find work, we need to build: build new educational institutions, new retraining and upskilling programs, and, most importantly, new firms.

Surasak Suwanmake/Getty Images

Blame AI or Build With AI? Only One Approach Creates Jobs

We’re failing young Americans. Many of them are struggling to find work. Unemployment among 16- to 24-year-olds topped 10.5% in August. Even among those who do find a job, many of them are settling for lower-paying roles. More than 50% of college grads are underemployed. To make matters worse, the path forward to a more stable, lucrative career is seemingly up in the air. High school grads in their twenties find jobs at nearly the same rate as those with four-year degrees.

We have two options: blame or build. The first involves blaming AI, as if this new technology is entirely to blame for the current economic malaise facing Gen Z. This course of action involves slowing or even stopping AI adoption. For example, there’s so-called robot taxes. The thinking goes that by placing financial penalties on firms that lean into AI, there will be more roles left to Gen Z and workers in general. Then there’s the idea of banning or limiting the use of AI in hiring and firing decisions. Applicants who have struggled to find work suggest that increased use of AI may be partially at fault. Others have called for providing workers with a greater say in whether and to what extent their firm uses AI. This may help firms find ways to integrate AI in a way that augments workers rather than replace them.

Keep ReadingShow less
Parv Mehta Is Leading the Fight Against AI Misinformation

A visual representation of deep fake and disinformation concepts, featuring various related keywords in green on a dark background, symbolizing the spread of false information and the impact of artificial intelligence.

Getty Images

Parv Mehta Is Leading the Fight Against AI Misinformation

At a moment when the country is grappling with the civic consequences of rapidly advancing technology, Parv Mehta stands out as one of the most forward‑thinking young leaders of his generation. Recognized as one of the 500 Gen Zers named to the 2025 Carnegie Young Leaders for Civic Preparedness cohort, Mehta represents the kind of grounded, community‑rooted innovator the program was designed to elevate.

A high school student from Washington state, Parv has emerged as a leading youth voice on the dangers of artificial intelligence and deepfakes. He recognized early that his generation would inherit a world where misinformation spreads faster than truth—and where young people are often the most vulnerable targets. Motivated by years of computer science classes and a growing awareness of AI’s risks, he launched a project to educate students across Washington about deepfake technology, media literacy, and digital safety.

Keep ReadingShow less
child holding smartphone

As Australia bans social media for kids under 16, U.S. parents face a harder truth: online safety isn’t an individual choice; it’s a collective responsibility.

Getty Images/Keiko Iwabuchi

Parents Must Quit Infighting to Keep Kids Safe Online

Last week, Australia’s social media ban for children under age 16 officially took effect. It remains to be seen how this law will shape families' behavior; however, it’s at least a stand against the tech takeover of childhood. Here in the U.S., however, we're in a different boat — a consensus on what's best for kids feels much harder to come by among both lawmakers and parents.

In order to make true progress on this issue, we must resist the fallacy of parental individualism – that what you choose for your own child is up to you alone. That it’s a personal, or family, decision to allow smartphones, or certain apps, or social media. But it’s not a personal decision. The choice you make for your family and your kids affects them and their friends, their friends' siblings, their classmates, and so on. If there is no general consensus around parenting decisions when it comes to tech, all kids are affected.

Keep ReadingShow less