3 ms·
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 funn
by 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 agoSomehow 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 agoI 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 agoRight, 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 agoIt 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 agoThe 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 agoIt’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.