[HN Gopher] Trump's likely FCC chair wrote Project 2025 chapter ...
___________________________________________________________________
Trump's likely FCC chair wrote Project 2025 chapter on how he'd run
the agency
Author : Jtsummers
Score : 78 points
Date : 2024-11-07 22:18 UTC (41 minutes ago)
(HTM) web link (arstechnica.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (arstechnica.com)
| mikeyouse wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Given the proven and documented government-involved censorship
| campaigns these social media sites have been involved in, this
| should be neither surprising nor unwarranted. For some reason
| people cheer rights violations and authoritarianism as long as
| it's aimed at their "rivals"
| culi wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| aaronbrethorst wrote:
| _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.
| outside1234 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Project 2025 is not Trump's plan, but Trump is Project 2025's
| plan.
| smallmouth wrote:
| 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.
| geenat wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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?
| pavlov wrote:
| Do you think the American right wants Twitter/X or Truth Social
| to be responsible for misinformation?
| eigart wrote:
| The law can be applied selectively.
| dataflow wrote:
| > Honest question: it seems like the left and right might
| really agree here on limiting the legal protections for social
| media companies.
|
| How do you imagine the "TikTok ban" playing out under a left
| vs. right administration?
| viraptor wrote:
| I see those as slightly related, but not really in agreement.
| Right side is more "control what the media can say". Left is
| more "control what effects media has". The second involves more
| responsibility, but not necessarily less protection. There's
| nuance in that.
|
| Meta being responsible for lack of moderation is not the same
| as Meta being responsible for the specific content people post.
| spondylosaurus wrote:
| _We_ do, but the ultra-wealthy owners of Meta et al don 't, and
| they're the ones with large wallets and direct lines to coming
| administration.
|
| How a party can bill itself as a champion of the working class
| while also being in the pocket of dozens of billionaires is
| beyond me.
| culi wrote:
| Both parties are in the pockets of billionaires. The only
| astounding part is how Trump, whose personal business history
| includes illegal labor rights violations and has always had a
| vitriol for unions, is sometimes preferred over Biden, who's
| been the best president for labor in over 100 years
|
| "It's the economy, stupid" is an old and tired cliche. Really
| its "the vibe of the economy"
| robertlagrant wrote:
| I think the vibe is "no point being the best president for
| labour if things cost far more".
| pessimizer wrote:
| Or when you break a railroad strike.
| spondylosaurus wrote:
| Yeah, I'll definitely grant that both parties are in the
| pockets of billionaires, although one seems to more than
| the other. There's a reason so many of them flock to one
| side.
|
| The only explanation I can think of for the constituency is
| that people like a confident but far-fetched proposal more
| than an undramatic but feasible one. Slowly chipping away
| economic inequality and strengthening labor protections and
| introducing social benefits _actually works_ , it just
| doesn't sound as impressive as "I will quickly and
| singlehandedly fix the cost of living (source: trust me)."
| Terr_ wrote:
| I saw a Techdirt comment related to this (specifically on
| Section 230) which I thought was rather insightful [0].
|
| To use a _Don Quixote_ analogy, the politicans are tilting at
| windmills so that their supports perceive them as Doing
| Something. Their followers think the politicians are successful
| because they acting unopposed by any pro-Dragon forces. (And
| they don 't see any reason to pay attention to what pro-
| Windmill groups are saying.)
|
| [0] https://www.techdirt.com/2024/11/05/no-section-230-doesnt-
| ci...
| wwweston wrote:
| "being wrong about 230 is bipartisan"
|
| https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referre...
| keernan wrote:
| [delayed]
| robertlagrant wrote:
| > 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.
| OneLeggedCat wrote:
| This will be a disaster. But I'm sure he will enjoy broad support
| for it, so what do I know.
| evan_ wrote:
| broad support doesn't make it _not_ a disaster.
| legitster wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > You can't really have it both ways.
|
| Oh you totally can, you just have to give up consistency
| _moof wrote:
| If there's anything we've learned over the last decade, it's
| "look at what they do, not what they say." People's stated
| principles mean nothing.
| keerthiko wrote:
| consistency has never been of importance to people who align
| with Trump in any fashion (thus this includes Elon)
| politician wrote:
| Any FCC rule-making will be caught up in post-Chevron decision
| lawsuits. Folks should relax.
| b3ing wrote:
| I guess all these things will test how far they can go to push
| things their way.
| bandyaboot wrote:
| It's difficult to imagine that there will be any meaningful
| limit. Who will there be with any power to apply the brakes?
| pessimizer wrote:
| 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 an 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.
| jimbob45 wrote:
| 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-christ...
| cooper_ganglia wrote:
| >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!
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-11-07 23:00 UTC)