13 ms·

Trump's likely FCC chair wrote Project 2025 chapter on how he'd run the agency

120 points by Jtsummers 2y ago

mikeyouse 2y ago
There should be no surprise how any of this plays out - they were abundantly clear what their goals were. But these two parts next to each other are pretty funny: > "The FCC is a New Deal–era agency. Its history of regulation tends to reflect the view that the federal government should impose heavy-handed regulation rather than relying on competition and market forces to produce optimal outcomes" .. > The FCC should have four primary goals, Carr wrote. Those goals are "reining in Big Tech, promoting national security, unleashing economic prosperity, and ensuring FCC accountability and good governance." > On Big Tech, Carr wants to implement Trump's 2020 plan to crack down on social media websites for alleged anti-conservative bias. At the time, Trump formally petitioned the FCC to reinterpret Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in a way that would limit social media platforms' legal protections for hosting third-party content when the platforms take down content they consider objectionable. The only "North Star" is grievance.
- calculatte 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - culi 2y ago
    Somehow I don't think the Trump admin is gonna crack down on his own collusion with Twitter nor the crackdown on free speech on college campuses in response to antiwar protests
  - mikeyouse 2y ago
    I know right - can you believe that the billionaire owner one of the social media companies was actively campaigning for one of the candidates and making sure every user saw every post they made in support of that candidate. Including several outright lies that ended up with community notes, but only hours after posting and being seen by millions of people?
    - rurp 2y ago
      Right, I'm sure the new FCC will crack down hard on Twitter and the owner's legally dubious election interference. This is a party of principles after all! At least that's what I keep hearing from them.
    - whatthesmack 2y ago
      It does seem a bit ridiculous, doesn't it? However, you're describing what the "basket of deplorables[0]" and half of America have experienced for the last 3+ years: tilted views on all major social media platforms in concert with the federal government as exposed in the Twitter Files[1]. [0] https://time.com/4486502/hillary-clinton-basket-of-deplorables-transcript/ https://time.com/4486502/hillary-clinton-basket-of-deplorabl... [1] https://twitterfiles.substack.com https://twitterfiles.substack.com
      - hn_acker 2y ago
        The Twitter Files, which did not demonstrate any coercion or threats toward Twitter from the federal government [1]. [1] https://www.techdirt.com/2023/06/05/twitter-admits-in-court-filing-elon-musk-is-simply-wrong-about-government-interference-at-twitter/ https://www.techdirt.com/2023/06/05/twitter-admits-in-court-...
  - bogwog 2y ago
    > For some reason people cheer rights violations and authoritarianism as long as it's aimed at their "rivals" Are you talking about the time when Twitter censored the laptop story[1], or about the time when X censored the JD Vance story[2]? 1. https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/08/politics/twitter-hearing-house-oversight/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/08/politics/twitter-hearing-hous... 2. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/12/x-twitter-jd-vance-leaked-file https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/12/x-twitter-jd...
  - singleshot_ 2y ago
    It’s more apt to say that people don’t want their online hangouts to be infested with the other team’s brainworms. This is a fair want! And it’s the basis of the free market, the reason we have many commercial options for online speech, not just one.
aaronbrethorst 2y ago
The chair does not have unlimited power, of course. Congress can expand or reduce the FCC's authority by passing new laws or eliminating existing ones. FCC decisions are routinely challenged in court, and a recent Supreme Court ruling limited the regulatory authority of federal agencies. This is one of those moments where I'm disappointed that HN doesn't have support for GIFs, as I think the Jennifer Lawrence "OK" meme would be perfect in response to this.
- Supermancho 2y ago
  Until suits are settled, it's uncommon for courts to intervene on an undecided issue in government control. This is immediately obvious. Anyone being able to subvert the power of an appointment or elected position by filing a court case, would lead to increased and rampant dysfunction. The official FCC chair's statements have a chilling effect, on their own.
outside1234 2y ago
But wait, I thought Project 2025 wasn't Trump's plan! More generally and with less snark, get ready for high scale clientelism with Musk and Petroleum in general and generally policy based on people who were "nice to Trump" based on any sort of measure of its importance to rank and file citizens.
- jeffbee 2y ago
  Project 2025 is not Trump's plan, but Trump is Project 2025's plan.
  - smallmouth 2y ago
    Ha! That's pretty good. Just like Santa was my Christmas list's plan. I always added things I knew were a stretch; always in the thought that Santa might surprise me.
grahamj 2y ago
[flagged]
geenat 2y ago
> a Carr-led FCC would likely drop the agency's legal defense of its net neutrality rules Up to no good. Predictably a lobbyist in the same vien as Ajit Pai.
Schiendelman 2y ago
Honest question: it seems like the left and right might really agree here on limiting the legal protections for social media companies. Don't we want companies like Meta to be responsible for misinformation?
- robertlagrant 2y ago
  > Don't we want companies like Meta to be responsible for misinformation? I don't particularly. I don't think it's their job to have that power.
  - rolandog 2y ago
    I respectfully disagree... They already exercise some censorship that is mostly biased towards the interests of the company (e.g. instances of war crimes being censored on Meta platforms). Holding them accountable would make them beholden to the truth (and, partially to us)... Not to whomever they sell our private data to. I think this is crucial distinction which may help reduce politization.
    - robertlagrant 2y ago
      > Holding them accountable would make them beholden to the truth I don't understand how this would work. Who determines what's true?
      - rolandog 2y ago
        At the very least, you could try differentiating between opinions and facts... And facts could be verified via knowledge graphs. It'd have to be open-source and reproducibility should be a core value (so we can start healing some of the scientific fields' reproducibility crises). [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_graph https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_graph
  - swatcoder 2y ago
    If I had precise control over what feeds I see, I'd agree with you. But they insert ads and content I've never subscribed to, with no way to prevent either. They also selectively suppress content that I have subscribed to. That doesn't sound like a neutral conveyance of information. In fact, it sounds like they're already exercising the power you'd prefer they not have, according to private algorithms and policies that offer none of transparency or accountability that comes with public regulation. Whatever you'd prefer, it's already disappearing from the rear view mirror. Facebook 2024 is not Facebook 2008, nor are any of its peers.
OneLeggedCat 2y ago
This will be a disaster. But I'm sure he will enjoy broad support for it, so what do I know.
- evan_ 2y ago
  broad support doesn't make it not a disaster.
  - dhosek 2y ago
    Hey as long as billionaires get richer, it’s all good.
legitster 2y ago
I'm all for giving people their chance with a good faith interpretation of their positions. But I am having trouble squaring his writings about having free and competitive ISP markets, with is his positions about reigning in tech companies. He also complains that the FCC is a heavy-handed New Deal era agency ... but he also supports the agency nannying television and removing Section 230. You can't really have it both ways.
- habitue 2y ago
  > You can't really have it both ways. Oh you totally can, you just have to give up consistency
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - summerlight 2y ago
    Or change the goal to the securing consistent control and power.
  - stogot 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - throw0101d 2y ago
    >> You can't really have it both ways. > Oh you totally can, you just have to give up consistency We need a 'CAP theorem'-like thing for political doublethink.
    - thunky 2y ago
      Consistency, Integrity, Effectiveness. Pick 0.
- keerthiko 2y ago
  consistency has never been of importance to people who align with Trump in any fashion (thus this includes Elon)
b3ing 2y ago
I guess all these things will test how far they can go to push things their way.
- bandyaboot 2y ago
  It’s difficult to imagine that there will be any meaningful limit. Who will there be with any power to apply the brakes?
  - ajross 2y ago
    Yeah, while it's sort of far afield from FCC regulation discussion, the previous Trump administration pushed "norm breaking" about as far as it can conceivably be pushed without actually destroying the system. And he "got away with it". There will be no hesitation this time around. The question is only in what direction the whims and attention will turn, not what can be done to constrain it.
  - nemo44x 2y ago
    If they overreach, which most parties do when given the opportunity, there are elections in 2 years and then 4 where they can be reprimanded and power can be reallocated. If it’s truly bad policy it can be changed.
    - giraffe_lady 2y ago
      Russia has elections too.
      - nemo44x 2y ago
        I mean Trump is pretty old so even if he’s somehow a dictator (he’s not, he’s just a demagogue that’s very disagreeable - 2 traits that often lead to success if used well) he won’t around that long, lol.
        giraffe_lady 2y ago
politician 2y ago
Any FCC rule-making will be caught up in post-Chevron decision lawsuits. Folks should relax.
- jasonjayr 2y ago
  Have you been paying attention? SCOTUS has been ignoring or re-interpreting precident when convinent for advancing conservative agenda items. If it advances the cause, the lawsuits will go the way they prefer, not with any consistency for established precident.
- _moof 2y ago
  You seem to be under the impression that this generation of courts holds itself to a set of principles, rather than just motivated reasoning to do whatever they want. There will be no consistency. The Chevron decision will matter when they want it to and it won't when they don't.
  - legitster 2y ago
    Respectfully disagree. I would argue that the court has been fairly consistent - in nearly every case they have sided against federal organizations in favor of states, with a couple of exceptions where they held constitutional questions. It is easily arguable that this court is more consistent than previous courts. Like them or not, decisions like Sebelius and Obergefell were based on much, much more wild interpretations of constitutionality ("legalistic argle-bargle") and were much more driven by a court using the ends to justify the means.
- some-guy 2y ago
  Post-Chevron won't make a difference if they can sign and pass this into law with all chambers of congress in control.
- SimianSci 2y ago
  Respectfully, This doesnt track with what we are seeing in very-recent history. SCOTUS is broadly drawing criticism for picking and choosing winners and losers. We cannot expect there to be any consistency anymore when the only means of determining legal success looks to be whoever is favored by the most powerful judge in the room.
pessimizer 2y ago
There have been a dozen stories about "Trump's likely X" and "Trump eyeing Y for Z" with absolutely no interesting information or evidence other than their own personal fantasies. This one is entirely based on an accusation that Carr made publicly about NBC violating the Equal Time rule which was absolutely true, and resulted in an immediate offer of time to Harris and Kaine's opponents, likely because Lorne Michaels had said explicitly in an interview a few months ago that he wouldn't be having any of the candidates on because of that rule. > Carr was wrong about the Equal Time rule, media advocacy group Free Press said on November 3. The group pointed to an FCC fact sheet that says the rule "does not require a station to provide opposing candidates with programs identical to the initiating candidate." Carr didn't say that a station was required to provide opposing candidates with programs identical to the initiating candidate. > "Despite Carr's claim, there is no evidence that the network was trying to avoid the rules," Free Press said. "Broadcasters have no legal obligation to set aside broadcast time for opposing candidates, unless the candidates request it. Equal-opportunity requests are commonplace in the final days of a national election, and broadcasters typically honor them." There's a "7 day rule" within the regulation, and the only reason for it is to thwart giving a favored candidate time immediately before the election so that the opposing candidates don't have time to react. This rule, repeatedly mentioned by Carr, goes completely unmentioned in this article. > NBC did honor a request for equal time from the Trump campaign, giving him two free 60-second messages during NASCAR and NFL coverage. NBC almost immediately reached out after Carr posted, and offered Trump and Cao time. This is how things are supposed to work. The "7 day rule" was still violated, but at least the NASCAR audience was an comparable audience. But the fact that Harris (and Kaine) got a completely produced and scripted segment on a comedy show meant to humanize them, and Trump (and underdog candidate Cao who had started to poll within a few points of Kaine in the last days of the campaign) had to whip together a pretaped ad a day before their respective elections is exactly what that rule was meant to avoid. I'm sure Carr is shit, all Republicans who have been on the FCC have been shit, and most of the Democrats. But this is garbage, mostly recycled from some outfit called "Free Press" who I'm supposed to trust for no particular reason, and is not even meant to be read. It's meant to be a headline in social media feeds. edit: please don't be suckered by the stream of garbage that's going to target you over the next few months. When Trump inevitably starts doing awful things, they're going to be completely obscured by the fact that people will have been shrieking for months about things they pretended he did.
jimbob45 2y ago
Don't stay glued to your computer forecasting his future office picks. There were several candidates last time with Trump who seemed certain to hold offices that got permanently dumped closer to January. Chris Christie was the most notable example but there were others. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/11/chris-christie-dropped-trump-transition-team https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/11/chris-christ...
- rurp 2y ago
  True, but it's not like any of the alternatives to this guy are going to be a crusader for consumer rights and a free open internet. The party has been pretty clear about how they feel about these kinds of issues, and that vengence and cronyism are topline goals.
cooper_ganglia 2y ago
>On Big Tech, Carr wants to implement Trump's 2020 plan to crack down on social media websites for alleged anti-conservative bias. At the time, Trump formally petitioned the FCC to reinterpret Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in a way that would limit social media platforms' legal protections for hosting third-party content when the platforms take down content they consider objectionable. I don't like the other parts, but reading this section, it's wild to me that this isn't already the case and that it's not wildly bipartisan!
- everforward 2y ago
  Why? This reads like a blatant First Amendment violation. The platforms are not required to carry any content and moderation is a form of speech. Eg Fox News has no obligation to report on good news for liberals and vice versa for CNN. There’s nothing the government can do there unless they can pass strict scrutiny (they almost certainly wont). Trying to remove Section 230 protections for exercising First Amendment rights isn’t going to fly. Revoking 230 entirely is fine, but doing targeted removal of 230 protections based on speech isn’t going to go anywhere. Conservatives are more than welcome to make their own social networks with opposing moderation, and they have. They just don’t get to try to force other platforms to moderate differently because no one wants to use Truth Social or whatever.
  - krapp 2y ago
    >They just don’t get to try to force other platforms to moderate differently because no one wants to use Truth Social or whatever. They're going to control the White House, Congress, and Supreme Court. Yes they do get to do exactly that.
- legitster 2y ago
  If HN became legally responsible for everything posted on its site, there would be no more HN. Copy + paste across the internet. The internet would only be legally usable for corporate entities.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
Alupis 2y ago
[flagged]
- falcolas 2y ago
  A difference of opinion? What human rights people are allowed to have is a difference of opinion?? Who gets thrown in jail for being "the enemy within" is a difference of opinion? Which media outlets get closed down for airing Pumpkin Spice Palpatine's dirty laundry is a difference of opinion? Kindly quit turning down the lights and telling us it's our imagination.
  - Alupis 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - consteval 2y ago
      It's not ridiculous at all, or koolaid, to quote Trump on his own policies. People aren't fear mongering about Trump dissolving the department of education, for example. He said he would. People are also not fear mongering about Trump deploying the military on US soil to clean out immigrants and naturalized citizens. He said he would. People are also not fear mongering about Trump surveilling and punishing women who go out of state to get an abortion. He said he would. People are not fear mongering when they say Trump will remove insurance protections that grant access to gender affirming care and PrEP. He said he would. This will directly result in many women dying, many homosexuals dying, and many trans people dying. This isn't up for debate, so don't bother trying. If you won't even listen to Trump on the things HE'S saying, why did you vote for him? This isn't rhetorical - if you don't agree with the things I've just said, why did you vote for him?
      - tervical 2y ago
        [flagged]
        2y ago
readthenotes1 2y ago
"Just before the election, Carr alleged that NBC putting Kamala Harris on Saturday Night Live was "a clear and blatant effort to evade the FCC's Equal Time rule," and that the FCC should consider issuing penalties. Despite Carr's claim, NBC did provide equal time to the Trump campaign." Didn't NBC provide the NFL and NASCAR commercials under duress ? https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/nbc-donald-trump-campaign-free-ad-time-nascar-race-kamala-harris-snl-sketch-1236052709/ https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/nbc-donald-trum... I really don't want to have to dig into any more biased reporting in the attached article. It gets exhausting
olliej 2y ago
The reason for this is very simple. Section 230 means you can't target a corporation that hosts content by other people, for content you dislike. For example: currently if someone doesn't want to see someone posting "objectionable" content - you have to identify them, then sue them. That's a problem if there's messages you don't like but you can't make illegal. But if instead you can sue the host, you can just keep suing the host, and the host eventually starts disallowing that content on its services, even if it is legal. Like they already do for adult content. But the incoming administration has stated that content they believe should be illegal is anything that says LGBT people have the right to exist. You see this with their consistent bans on library books, their attempts to reclassify books as fiction if they can't block them on "harmful" content, etc. We can see that this is nothing about ensuring an ability for people to hold corporations accountable to people, but specifically to enable censorship: because the proposed removals of protection from prosecution for content they host is the only place that proposed changes increase corporate liability. Every other proposed change removes the ability hold corporations accountable, removing worker protection, removing or hamstringing the agencies responsible for regulating safety, and removing or limiting the liability for any accidents, disasters, or dumping.
- nobody9999 2y ago
  >The reason for this is very simple. Section 230 means you can't target a corporation that hosts content by other people, for content you dislike. No. Section 230 means you can't target the proprietor of a website/online property (whether it's a corporation, some other sort of organization or an individual) for content posted on those properties by third parties. Revoking/removing Section 230 would allow the biggest corporations to continue hosting third-party speech, but would stop pretty much everyone else from doing so, as they likely can't afford to be sued by every crackpot who doesn't like what other folks say.
  - laverya 2y ago
    It's not even that. You can host third-party speech without Section 230, you just also gain liability from moderating that content.
goldforever 2y ago
[dead]

120 points by Jtsummers 2y ago

There should be no surprise how any of this plays out - they were abundantly clear what their goals were. But these two parts next to each other are pretty funny: > "The FCC is a New Deal–era agency. Its history of regulation tends to reflect the view that the federal government should impose heavy-handed regulation rather than relying on competition and market forces to produce optimal outcomes" .. > The FCC should have four primary goals, Carr wrote. Those goals are "reining in Big Tech, promoting national security, unleashing economic prosperity, and ensuring FCC accountability and good governance." > On Big Tech, Carr wants to implement Trump's 2020 plan to crack down on social media websites for alleged anti-conservative bias. At the time, Trump formally petitioned the FCC to reinterpret Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in a way that would limit social media platforms' legal protections for hosting third-party content when the platforms take down content they consider objectionable. The only "North Star" is grievance.

calculatte 2y ago
[flagged]
- culi 2y ago
  Somehow I don't think the Trump admin is gonna crack down on his own collusion with Twitter nor the crackdown on free speech on college campuses in response to antiwar protests
- mikeyouse 2y ago
  I know right - can you believe that the billionaire owner one of the social media companies was actively campaigning for one of the candidates and making sure every user saw every post they made in support of that candidate. Including several outright lies that ended up with community notes, but only hours after posting and being seen by millions of people?
  - rurp 2y ago
    Right, I'm sure the new FCC will crack down hard on Twitter and the owner's legally dubious election interference. This is a party of principles after all! At least that's what I keep hearing from them.
  - whatthesmack 2y ago
    It does seem a bit ridiculous, doesn't it? However, you're describing what the "basket of deplorables[0]" and half of America have experienced for the last 3+ years: tilted views on all major social media platforms in concert with the federal government as exposed in the Twitter Files[1]. [0] https://time.com/4486502/hillary-clinton-basket-of-deplorables-transcript/ https://time.com/4486502/hillary-clinton-basket-of-deplorabl... [1] https://twitterfiles.substack.com https://twitterfiles.substack.com
    - hn_acker 2y ago
      The Twitter Files, which did not demonstrate any coercion or threats toward Twitter from the federal government [1]. [1] https://www.techdirt.com/2023/06/05/twitter-admits-in-court-filing-elon-musk-is-simply-wrong-about-government-interference-at-twitter/ https://www.techdirt.com/2023/06/05/twitter-admits-in-court-...
- bogwog 2y ago
  > For some reason people cheer rights violations and authoritarianism as long as it's aimed at their "rivals" Are you talking about the time when Twitter censored the laptop story[1], or about the time when X censored the JD Vance story[2]? 1. https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/08/politics/twitter-hearing-house-oversight/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/08/politics/twitter-hearing-hous... 2. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/12/x-twitter-jd-vance-leaked-file https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/12/x-twitter-jd...
- singleshot_ 2y ago
  It’s more apt to say that people don’t want their online hangouts to be infested with the other team’s brainworms. This is a fair want! And it’s the basis of the free market, the reason we have many commercial options for online speech, not just one.

aaronbrethorst 2y ago

The chair does not have unlimited power, of course. Congress can expand or reduce the FCC's authority by passing new laws or eliminating existing ones. FCC decisions are routinely challenged in court, and a recent Supreme Court ruling limited the regulatory authority of federal agencies. This is one of those moments where I'm disappointed that HN doesn't have support for GIFs, as I think the Jennifer Lawrence "OK" meme would be perfect in response to this.

Supermancho 2y ago
Until suits are settled, it's uncommon for courts to intervene on an undecided issue in government control. This is immediately obvious. Anyone being able to subvert the power of an appointment or elected position by filing a court case, would lead to increased and rampant dysfunction. The official FCC chair's statements have a chilling effect, on their own.

outside1234 2y ago

But wait, I thought Project 2025 wasn't Trump's plan! More generally and with less snark, get ready for high scale clientelism with Musk and Petroleum in general and generally policy based on people who were "nice to Trump" based on any sort of measure of its importance to rank and file citizens.

jeffbee 2y ago
Project 2025 is not Trump's plan, but Trump is Project 2025's plan.
- smallmouth 2y ago
  Ha! That's pretty good. Just like Santa was my Christmas list's plan. I always added things I knew were a stretch; always in the thought that Santa might surprise me.

grahamj 2y ago

[flagged]

geenat 2y ago

> a Carr-led FCC would likely drop the agency's legal defense of its net neutrality rules Up to no good. Predictably a lobbyist in the same vien as Ajit Pai.

Schiendelman 2y ago

Honest question: it seems like the left and right might really agree here on limiting the legal protections for social media companies. Don't we want companies like Meta to be responsible for misinformation?

robertlagrant 2y ago
> Don't we want companies like Meta to be responsible for misinformation? I don't particularly. I don't think it's their job to have that power.
- rolandog 2y ago
  I respectfully disagree... They already exercise some censorship that is mostly biased towards the interests of the company (e.g. instances of war crimes being censored on Meta platforms). Holding them accountable would make them beholden to the truth (and, partially to us)... Not to whomever they sell our private data to. I think this is crucial distinction which may help reduce politization.
  - robertlagrant 2y ago
    > Holding them accountable would make them beholden to the truth I don't understand how this would work. Who determines what's true?
    - rolandog 2y ago
      At the very least, you could try differentiating between opinions and facts... And facts could be verified via knowledge graphs. It'd have to be open-source and reproducibility should be a core value (so we can start healing some of the scientific fields' reproducibility crises). [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_graph https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_graph
- swatcoder 2y ago
  If I had precise control over what feeds I see, I'd agree with you. But they insert ads and content I've never subscribed to, with no way to prevent either. They also selectively suppress content that I have subscribed to. That doesn't sound like a neutral conveyance of information. In fact, it sounds like they're already exercising the power you'd prefer they not have, according to private algorithms and policies that offer none of transparency or accountability that comes with public regulation. Whatever you'd prefer, it's already disappearing from the rear view mirror. Facebook 2024 is not Facebook 2008, nor are any of its peers.

OneLeggedCat 2y ago

This will be a disaster. But I'm sure he will enjoy broad support for it, so what do I know.

evan_ 2y ago
broad support doesn't make it not a disaster.
- dhosek 2y ago
  Hey as long as billionaires get richer, it’s all good.

legitster 2y ago

I'm all for giving people their chance with a good faith interpretation of their positions. But I am having trouble squaring his writings about having free and competitive ISP markets, with is his positions about reigning in tech companies. He also complains that the FCC is a heavy-handed New Deal era agency ... but he also supports the agency nannying television and removing Section 230. You can't really have it both ways.

habitue 2y ago
> You can't really have it both ways. Oh you totally can, you just have to give up consistency
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- summerlight 2y ago
  Or change the goal to the securing consistent control and power.
- stogot 2y ago
  [flagged]
- throw0101d 2y ago
  >> You can't really have it both ways. > Oh you totally can, you just have to give up consistency We need a 'CAP theorem'-like thing for political doublethink.
  - thunky 2y ago
    Consistency, Integrity, Effectiveness. Pick 0.
keerthiko 2y ago
consistency has never been of importance to people who align with Trump in any fashion (thus this includes Elon)

b3ing 2y ago

I guess all these things will test how far they can go to push things their way.

bandyaboot 2y ago
It’s difficult to imagine that there will be any meaningful limit. Who will there be with any power to apply the brakes?
- ajross 2y ago
  Yeah, while it's sort of far afield from FCC regulation discussion, the previous Trump administration pushed "norm breaking" about as far as it can conceivably be pushed without actually destroying the system. And he "got away with it". There will be no hesitation this time around. The question is only in what direction the whims and attention will turn, not what can be done to constrain it.
- nemo44x 2y ago
  If they overreach, which most parties do when given the opportunity, there are elections in 2 years and then 4 where they can be reprimanded and power can be reallocated. If it’s truly bad policy it can be changed.
  - giraffe_lady 2y ago
    Russia has elections too.
    - nemo44x 2y ago
      I mean Trump is pretty old so even if he’s somehow a dictator (he’s not, he’s just a demagogue that’s very disagreeable - 2 traits that often lead to success if used well) he won’t around that long, lol.
      - giraffe_lady 2y ago

politician 2y ago

Any FCC rule-making will be caught up in post-Chevron decision lawsuits. Folks should relax.

jasonjayr 2y ago
Have you been paying attention? SCOTUS has been ignoring or re-interpreting precident when convinent for advancing conservative agenda items. If it advances the cause, the lawsuits will go the way they prefer, not with any consistency for established precident.
_moof 2y ago
You seem to be under the impression that this generation of courts holds itself to a set of principles, rather than just motivated reasoning to do whatever they want. There will be no consistency. The Chevron decision will matter when they want it to and it won't when they don't.
- legitster 2y ago
  Respectfully disagree. I would argue that the court has been fairly consistent - in nearly every case they have sided against federal organizations in favor of states, with a couple of exceptions where they held constitutional questions. It is easily arguable that this court is more consistent than previous courts. Like them or not, decisions like Sebelius and Obergefell were based on much, much more wild interpretations of constitutionality ("legalistic argle-bargle") and were much more driven by a court using the ends to justify the means.
some-guy 2y ago
Post-Chevron won't make a difference if they can sign and pass this into law with all chambers of congress in control.
SimianSci 2y ago
Respectfully, This doesnt track with what we are seeing in very-recent history. SCOTUS is broadly drawing criticism for picking and choosing winners and losers. We cannot expect there to be any consistency anymore when the only means of determining legal success looks to be whoever is favored by the most powerful judge in the room.

pessimizer 2y ago

There have been a dozen stories about "Trump's likely X" and "Trump eyeing Y for Z" with absolutely no interesting information or evidence other than their own personal fantasies. This one is entirely based on an accusation that Carr made publicly about NBC violating the Equal Time rule which was absolutely true, and resulted in an immediate offer of time to Harris and Kaine's opponents, likely because Lorne Michaels had said explicitly in an interview a few months ago that he wouldn't be having any of the candidates on because of that rule. > Carr was wrong about the Equal Time rule, media advocacy group Free Press said on November 3. The group pointed to an FCC fact sheet that says the rule "does not require a station to provide opposing candidates with programs identical to the initiating candidate." Carr didn't say that a station was required to provide opposing candidates with programs identical to the initiating candidate. > "Despite Carr's claim, there is no evidence that the network was trying to avoid the rules," Free Press said. "Broadcasters have no legal obligation to set aside broadcast time for opposing candidates, unless the candidates request it. Equal-opportunity requests are commonplace in the final days of a national election, and broadcasters typically honor them." There's a "7 day rule" within the regulation, and the only reason for it is to thwart giving a favored candidate time immediately before the election so that the opposing candidates don't have time to react. This rule, repeatedly mentioned by Carr, goes completely unmentioned in this article. > NBC did honor a request for equal time from the Trump campaign, giving him two free 60-second messages during NASCAR and NFL coverage. NBC almost immediately reached out after Carr posted, and offered Trump and Cao time. This is how things are supposed to work. The "7 day rule" was still violated, but at least the NASCAR audience was an comparable audience. But the fact that Harris (and Kaine) got a completely produced and scripted segment on a comedy show meant to humanize them, and Trump (and underdog candidate Cao who had started to poll within a few points of Kaine in the last days of the campaign) had to whip together a pretaped ad a day before their respective elections is exactly what that rule was meant to avoid. I'm sure Carr is shit, all Republicans who have been on the FCC have been shit, and most of the Democrats. But this is garbage, mostly recycled from some outfit called "Free Press" who I'm supposed to trust for no particular reason, and is not even meant to be read. It's meant to be a headline in social media feeds. edit: please don't be suckered by the stream of garbage that's going to target you over the next few months. When Trump inevitably starts doing awful things, they're going to be completely obscured by the fact that people will have been shrieking for months about things they pretended he did.

jimbob45 2y ago

Don't stay glued to your computer forecasting his future office picks. There were several candidates last time with Trump who seemed certain to hold offices that got permanently dumped closer to January. Chris Christie was the most notable example but there were others. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/11/chris-christie-dropped-trump-transition-team https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/11/chris-christ...

rurp 2y ago
True, but it's not like any of the alternatives to this guy are going to be a crusader for consumer rights and a free open internet. The party has been pretty clear about how they feel about these kinds of issues, and that vengence and cronyism are topline goals.

cooper_ganglia 2y ago

>On Big Tech, Carr wants to implement Trump's 2020 plan to crack down on social media websites for alleged anti-conservative bias. At the time, Trump formally petitioned the FCC to reinterpret Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in a way that would limit social media platforms' legal protections for hosting third-party content when the platforms take down content they consider objectionable. I don't like the other parts, but reading this section, it's wild to me that this isn't already the case and that it's not wildly bipartisan!

everforward 2y ago
Why? This reads like a blatant First Amendment violation. The platforms are not required to carry any content and moderation is a form of speech. Eg Fox News has no obligation to report on good news for liberals and vice versa for CNN. There’s nothing the government can do there unless they can pass strict scrutiny (they almost certainly wont). Trying to remove Section 230 protections for exercising First Amendment rights isn’t going to fly. Revoking 230 entirely is fine, but doing targeted removal of 230 protections based on speech isn’t going to go anywhere. Conservatives are more than welcome to make their own social networks with opposing moderation, and they have. They just don’t get to try to force other platforms to moderate differently because no one wants to use Truth Social or whatever.
- krapp 2y ago
  >They just don’t get to try to force other platforms to moderate differently because no one wants to use Truth Social or whatever. They're going to control the White House, Congress, and Supreme Court. Yes they do get to do exactly that.
legitster 2y ago
If HN became legally responsible for everything posted on its site, there would be no more HN. Copy + paste across the internet. The internet would only be legally usable for corporate entities.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

Alupis 2y ago

[flagged]

falcolas 2y ago
A difference of opinion? What human rights people are allowed to have is a difference of opinion?? Who gets thrown in jail for being "the enemy within" is a difference of opinion? Which media outlets get closed down for airing Pumpkin Spice Palpatine's dirty laundry is a difference of opinion? Kindly quit turning down the lights and telling us it's our imagination.
- Alupis 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - consteval 2y ago
    It's not ridiculous at all, or koolaid, to quote Trump on his own policies. People aren't fear mongering about Trump dissolving the department of education, for example. He said he would. People are also not fear mongering about Trump deploying the military on US soil to clean out immigrants and naturalized citizens. He said he would. People are also not fear mongering about Trump surveilling and punishing women who go out of state to get an abortion. He said he would. People are not fear mongering when they say Trump will remove insurance protections that grant access to gender affirming care and PrEP. He said he would. This will directly result in many women dying, many homosexuals dying, and many trans people dying. This isn't up for debate, so don't bother trying. If you won't even listen to Trump on the things HE'S saying, why did you vote for him? This isn't rhetorical - if you don't agree with the things I've just said, why did you vote for him?
    - tervical 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - 2y ago

readthenotes1 2y ago

"Just before the election, Carr alleged that NBC putting Kamala Harris on Saturday Night Live was "a clear and blatant effort to evade the FCC's Equal Time rule," and that the FCC should consider issuing penalties. Despite Carr's claim, NBC did provide equal time to the Trump campaign." Didn't NBC provide the NFL and NASCAR commercials under duress ? https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/nbc-donald-trump-campaign-free-ad-time-nascar-race-kamala-harris-snl-sketch-1236052709/ https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/nbc-donald-trum... I really don't want to have to dig into any more biased reporting in the attached article. It gets exhausting

olliej 2y ago

The reason for this is very simple. Section 230 means you can't target a corporation that hosts content by other people, for content you dislike. For example: currently if someone doesn't want to see someone posting "objectionable" content - you have to identify them, then sue them. That's a problem if there's messages you don't like but you can't make illegal. But if instead you can sue the host, you can just keep suing the host, and the host eventually starts disallowing that content on its services, even if it is legal. Like they already do for adult content. But the incoming administration has stated that content they believe should be illegal is anything that says LGBT people have the right to exist. You see this with their consistent bans on library books, their attempts to reclassify books as fiction if they can't block them on "harmful" content, etc. We can see that this is nothing about ensuring an ability for people to hold corporations accountable to people, but specifically to enable censorship: because the proposed removals of protection from prosecution for content they host is the only place that proposed changes increase corporate liability. Every other proposed change removes the ability hold corporations accountable, removing worker protection, removing or hamstringing the agencies responsible for regulating safety, and removing or limiting the liability for any accidents, disasters, or dumping.

nobody9999 2y ago
>The reason for this is very simple. Section 230 means you can't target a corporation that hosts content by other people, for content you dislike. No. Section 230 means you can't target the proprietor of a website/online property (whether it's a corporation, some other sort of organization or an individual) for content posted on those properties by third parties. Revoking/removing Section 230 would allow the biggest corporations to continue hosting third-party speech, but would stop pretty much everyone else from doing so, as they likely can't afford to be sued by every crackpot who doesn't like what other folks say.
- laverya 2y ago
  It's not even that. You can host third-party speech without Section 230, you just also gain liability from moderating that content.

goldforever 2y ago

[dead]