Trump Picks Carr To Head FCC With Pledge To Fight 'Censorship Cartel' 203
Donald Trump has named FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr to chair the U.S. communications regulator when he takes office in January 2025, citing Carr's stance against what Trump called "regulatory lawfare." Carr, a lawyer and longtime Republican who has served at the FCC under both Trump and Biden administrations, has emerged as a vocal critic of major social media companies' content moderation practices.
"Humbled and honored" by the appointment, Carr pledged on X to "dismantle the censorship cartel." As the FCC's senior Republican commissioner, Carr has advocated for stricter oversight of technology companies, pushing for transparency rules on platforms like Google and Facebook, expanded rural broadband access, and tougher restrictions on Chinese-owned TikTok. Trump praised Carr as a "warrior for free speech" while announcing the appointment. During his campaign, Trump has said he would seek to revoke licenses of television networks he views as biased.
"Humbled and honored" by the appointment, Carr pledged on X to "dismantle the censorship cartel." As the FCC's senior Republican commissioner, Carr has advocated for stricter oversight of technology companies, pushing for transparency rules on platforms like Google and Facebook, expanded rural broadband access, and tougher restrictions on Chinese-owned TikTok. Trump praised Carr as a "warrior for free speech" while announcing the appointment. During his campaign, Trump has said he would seek to revoke licenses of television networks he views as biased.
Sooo... (Score:5, Funny)
During his campaign, Trump has said he would seek to revoke licenses of television networks he views as biased.
Starting with Fox News?
Re:Sooo... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Sooo... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Except the GOP's complaints are with MSNBC and CNN which are cable channels as well.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you think Donnie knows that? Don't be silly.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure they do, but CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News aren't regulated by the FCC, so this story has nothing to do with them.
I believe you’re arguing with your previous defense in that these are “cable” channels.
MSNBC also operates on terrestrial broadcast. As in that old-ass OTA Boomer tech the FCC does still regulate differently from cable or other broadcasts.
Re: (Score:3)
Plus, like Fox, CNN does not broadcast over the airwaves. Therefore, it does not need an FCC license.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Starting with Fox News?
You didn't read what you quoted. Here's the important bit:
television networks *he* views as biased.
As long as Fox News continues to give him a daily reacharound *he* won't see them as biased.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The FCC has no jurisdiction over cable TV. It's OTA networks that matter. NBC Nightly News would be OTA because its affiliates broadcast it.
MSNBC operates on terrestrial broadcast. Given their obvious bias, perhaps we should question why the FCC isn’t doing more to substantiate their policy on broadcast news distortion, since that is one of the main reasons they regulate OTA more than cable.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Citation needed (Score:5, Informative)
https://x.com/realDonaldTrump/... [x.com]
https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]
https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/22... [cnn.com]
https://www.theguardian.com/co... [theguardian.com]
https://www.brookings.edu/arti... [brookings.edu]
Re:Citation needed (Score:4, Informative)
Amazing that Trump supporters don't know this stuff. Do Trump supporters not listen to his rallies, even excerpts from his rallies?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's called confirmation bias [wikipedia.org]. It's easy to forget things that you don't want to know or that conflicts with your world view.
Re:Sooo... FAUX is for marching morons (Score:2)
Nice FP and you deserve the Funny mods, but I think you should have tried to work your joke into your truly vacuous Subject.
My bad joke of the day is:
"You can't scramble dregs without breaking eggheads."
It's one of those feeble jokes that died even before it was explained. You see, the orange puppet doesn't even know he's part of the precipitate. The sociopaths pulling his strings have an infinite need for more money, even if it's become imaginary numbers of imaginary monies. It's the silly eggheads who sti
Re: (Score:2)
Fool me thrice...err.....We Won't Get Fooled Again [youtu.be]....
Re: (Score:2)
During his campaign, Trump has said he would seek to revoke licenses of television networks he views as biased.
Starting with Fox News?
Note that "he views as biased" means, "doesn't slobber all over him with praise for everything."
So anyone is at risk depending on the day and his whim.
Re: (Score:3)
No, no, no. Pay attention to what Trump does, not what Trump says. Although I have no doubt that Trump himself believes Fox to be truthful and honest, what do you expect from a man who sees himself at the center of the universe?
Trump is taking a play out of the book of many autocrats. Chiefly his friend and idol, Orban, who has shut down most of the open press or access to the press by the opposition. As in, don't ban the press outright, instead just revoke licenses due to technicalities.
In the US, bann
Re: (Score:3)
How does the government tell the press what they can and cannot say without seriously violating the 1st Amendment?
Re:Sooo... (Score:5, Insightful)
The first amendment can easily be reinterpreted by the supreme court. Now don't forget to tip your judge!
Re: (Score:2)
Corporate speech would be the first victim of that.
Re: (Score:2)
Corporations run the government so I'm sure the Supremes would let them do anything they want (I.e. Citizens United).
The real losers will be "the little guy" who can't buy politicians.
Re: (Score:2)
Who decides which candidates can even run in the primaries? What do you do when the political party decides who should and should not run, so then manipulates things to keep people out who would actually fix problems?
Re: (Score:2)
Well that all depends if the judges want to earn nice gratuities for being such an amazing judges.
Who doesn't tip well when you're charging it to a company?
Re: (Score:3)
That's a good question, and one I've spend way too much time thinking about.
We are have some simple things like not being able to yell fire in a theater - because it can/does lead to direct harm.
I always wondered, would it be fair to enforce a system such that if a News outlet said something that turns out to be provably false, then they must spend and equal amount of time (in the same general time window, not 2am) talking about how they got it wrong.
i.e., if they spend 2-3 hours over the Month stating that
Re:Sooo... (Score:5, Insightful)
The yelling fire in a theater is less about free speech and more about consiquence of action.
The act of shouting "fire" when there are no reasonable grounds for believing one exists is not in itself a crime, and nor would it be rendered a crime merely by having been carried out inside a theatre, crowded or otherwise. However, if it causes a stampede and someone is killed as a result, then the act could amount to a crime, such as involuntary manslaughter, assuming the other elements of that crime are made out.
You can have both free speech and consiquences of your actions. It is not censorship to fire someone for calling another coworker a racial slur. They are completely allowed to say it and the company has the right to disassociate with the person. Freedom of speech was never freedom of consiquence. Otherwise hiring someone to kill your wife would be legal.
Re: (Score:2)
That sounds an awful lot like creating another regulating body, of which Trump and team are looking to dissolve. They are starting to be at odds with themselves
Re: (Score:2)
I always wondered, would it be fair to enforce a system such that if a News outlet said something that turns out to be provably false, then they must spend and equal amount of time (in the same general time window, not 2am) talking about how they got it wrong.
i.e., if they spend 2-3 hours over the Month stating that some Senator from Texas was a Pedo, and he's later found to be innocent, then they should be required to spend 2-3 hours admitting they were wrong.
I don't think that would be enough. If I were that senator, I would sue the news outlet for defamation/slander/whatever. That would trigger discovery, and the news outlet would need to defend their reporting. Assuming I win, the news outlet would do something as part of the judgement against them: publish a retraction and pay me some money, as a minimum. See Fox News vs. Dominion for an example of that.
Now I fully understand that forced speech is just as bad. But if we are talking about licensing... Should we as a society continue to tolerate media outlets that knowing lie/slander/mislead? Or should we expect more from them - only reporting facts not offering opinion. I mean how awesome would that be to just report facts. And if they are caught lying, or implying, or opining, they they either accept the terms of the punishment, or lose their broadcast rights.
I'm not sure we're talking about license-empowered broadcast rights exclusively here. That only applies to
Re: (Score:2)
I always wondered, would it be fair to enforce a system such that if a News outlet said something that turns out to be provably false, then they must spend and equal amount of time (in the same general time window, not 2am) talking about how they got it wrong. i.e., if they spend 2-3 hours over the Month stating that some Senator from Texas was a Pedo, and he's later found to be innocent, then they should be required to spend 2-3 hours admitting they were wrong.
I don't think that would be enough. If I were that senator, I would sue the news outlet for defamation/slander/whatever.
Which is exactly the current system.
The question is, what about false information that is not defamatory against a specific named individual? For example, news media repeating claims that Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio are killing and eating domestic cats and dogs? (Spoiler: false alarm. They weren't.)
Re: (Score:2)
The question is, what about false information that is not defamatory against a specific named individual? For example, news media repeating claims that Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio are killing and eating domestic cats and dogs? (Spoiler: false alarm. They weren't.)
I don't think that was the question, but if you want to raise it, then fine, it's an interesting one. And agreed: false alarm re Haitian immigrants in Springfield.
IANAL, but my understanding is that someone who sues in court must have standing and show harm. The news media may not have named individuals when they pumped up the Haitian immigrants false story, but I suppose a group of Haitians in Springfield (who certainly have standing) could gather into a group and sue if they can show harm (threats, legiti
This is sooo easy! (Score:2)
Then you can deplatform it.
Are you new here?
Re:Sooo... (Score:5, Informative)
During his campaign, Trump has said he would seek to revoke licenses of television networks he views as biased.
Starting with Fox News?
The complaint, is centered around censorship.
Exactly. What is hypocritical is that on the one hand he is appointing Carr to fight censorship, and on the other hand he wants to revoke the license of stations that broadcast material he doesn't like.
That is literal censorship.
Re: (Score:2)
During his campaign, Trump has said he would seek to revoke licenses of television networks he views as biased.
Starting with Fox News?
The complaint, is centered around censorship.
Exactly. What is hypocritical is that on the one hand he is appointing Carr to fight censorship, and on the other hand he wants to revoke the license of stations that broadcast material he doesn't like.
That is literal censorship.
This. Censorship is something the government does. The rest of us (media or individuals) are just exercising our right to free speech.
I have put it another way before on Slashdot: The First Amendment protects you and me from the government. It does not protect you and me from each other.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone with power over you can be a censor, did your parents let you draw on the walls as a toddler?
The toddler can still say what s/he wants. Just not on the wall. Free speech often works in a similar fashion.
Re: (Score:2)
Accusing Trump of having incoherent and mutually contradictory positions is like complaining that the Earth orbits the sun. This is a revenge administration. Oh sure, it will end up in court, and in most cases will end up being thrown out, but the point is that it will be a series of costly fights that will chew up lots of money.
As always it's "First Amendment for thee, a boot on the neck for thee." But this is what Americans want.
Re: (Score:2)
Get rid of censorship ... (Score:5, Insightful)
... but tougher restrictions on TikTok. Not that I particularly like TikTok, but these two things just don't sound compatible.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I think you have seen Starship Troopers way too many times.
In Starship Troopers military service is voluntary. The twist was, only veterans can vote (and that includes only veterans: currently serving military can't.)
Re: Get rid of censorship ... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Did you seriously just say that anyone with a handicap that make them unfit for military service should also lose the right to vote? That anyone who screws up bad enough in the military to get kicked out within those two years should lose the right to vote?
Are you sure you like democracy at all?
Re:Get rid of censorship ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Come to think of it, being unfit for military service would also make them unfit for office? Because there's that thing about bone spurs...
Re: (Score:2)
McDonald's wouldn't even hire a convicted sex offender. https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:2)
(Don't even get me started on the voting counter-argument of 18 year olds serving. Mandatory 2-year conscription into the US Military would do fucking wonders for today’s generation. In every aspect imaginable. That’s my answer to that “problem”. You earn the right to vote after you’ve served the country that gave you that right the hard way.)
Fine. But fuck right off about any sort of federal or state taxes until I'm allowed to vote. If I don't have a say in the system, then it's ridiculous to say that I have to pay into that system, whether I'm getting a benefit from it or not. Let the veterans pay for their authoritarian state; the rest of us ride for free.
Re: (Score:3)
Fine. But fuck right off about any sort of federal or state taxes until I'm allowed to vote. If I don't have a say in the system, then it's ridiculous to say that I have to pay into that system, whether I'm getting a benefit from it or not.
I have a green card. I cannot vote, but I willingly pay my legal fair share of taxes.
Citizens can vote once they reach a certain age. Residence must pay taxes, whether they can vote or not, and no matter what their age is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And once you've lived here long enough are you planning to get naturalized and become a citizen? Not that I see anything wrong with you deciding to retain your citizenship in your native land, but I'm a tad curious.
Thank you for asking so politely. I respectfully decline to share why I have not (yet) become a citizen.
Re: (Score:2)
I have no reason other than curiosity to ask and certainly no reason to demand, or otherwise presume that your reasons are other than honorable.
Re: (Score:3)
You have a green card because you chose to come here, and either are not acquiring citizenship, or are on the path to that but not there yet. It makes sense that green card holders should pay taxes, because they made a choice to be here and participate.
Someone who's born a citizen does not have that choice. A US citizen, even if they choose to leave and doesn't earn a cent in the country, is obligated to pay income taxes, (the US is one of a very few countries in the world that does this.) In return, one of
Re: (Score:2)
You have a green card because you chose to come here, and either are not acquiring citizenship, or are on the path to that but not there yet. It makes sense that green card holders should pay taxes, because they made a choice to be here and participate.
Even people who live here without green cards or citizenship still need to pay taxes: H-1B, F-1, etc. Even J-1 holders need to pay federal and state taxes, although they are exempt from social security taxes for a period of time. But to your point: yes, I chose to come here, as others do who have work-permits, and we all must pay taxes.
Someone who's born a citizen does not have that choice. A US citizen, even if they choose to leave and doesn't earn a cent in the country, is obligated to pay income taxes, (the US is one of a very few countries in the world that does this.) In return, one of a citizen's rights is to the vote, or at least it should be; it's sadly abridged in many cases.
A US citizen who has left and become a citizen of another country can renounce her/his citizenship and thus be excused from paying US taxes. That's usually not a great idea,
Re:Get rid of censorship ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
That IS part of it, but the MAIN reasons is, to remove an app that gives the CCP an incredible capability of swaying US mindsets on subject, both political and non-political in nature.
We should not be giving a foreign power, especially if they are antagonistic towards the US that much power over public perception and general conversation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
However, we have the free-est most independent press in the world. Our news outlets regularly publish stuff that the US government absolutely hates to see in the public domain, and Uncle Sam basically just grits his teeth. US press freedom has been upheld by the supreme court over
Re: (Score:2)
TikTok is controlled by a foreign government, and it's been conclusively shown that they're absolutely under the thumb of the CCP.
US constitutional free speech protections do NOT apply to foreign governments. It's as simple as that.
Not sure about that. I think free speech rights are available to anyone, including TikTok and yes, the CCP. The US government can't censor them. However, TikTok does not necessarily have the right to conduct business in the USA.
Banning TikTok from conducting business in the USA (something Trump and Biden have wanted to do, but they differ in details) is not the same as censoring it. TikTok could still say what it wants even if it is banned from conducting business.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently undesirable for you, I personally like having platforms where I can openly speak my mind and not let some idiot with poor social skills try to dictate what is ok to say and what isn't.
Then why the f*** are you on slashdot?
Bad for free speech and net neutrality (Score:5, Interesting)
Trump's "free speech champion" will be tasked to "revoke licenses of television networks he views as biased".
Brendan Carr is also against Net Neutrality. So it sounds like yet another bad nomination from Trump.
Re:Bad for free speech and net neutrality (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bad for free speech and net neutrality (Score:5, Interesting)
It's remarkable how much "free speech" for certain segments seems to entirely consist of the government banning things they don't like.
"Orwellian" is a bit of an overused term, but it's very Orwellian.
Re:Bad for free speech and net neutrality (Score:5, Insightful)
It's remarkable how much "free speech" for certain segments seems to entirely consist of the government banning things they don't like.
"Orwellian" is a bit of an overused term, but it's very Orwellian.
For those of us who've actually read the book, the parallels are quite striking. Especially their attempts to change the language.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
At what point has the government been telling you what you can't do for the past four years(outside of the damned Supreme Court)? Disinformation is the intentional spreading of lies with the intent to manipulate people, so honestly, only someone who supports trying to convince people that what is real isn't real would be against blocking disinformation.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
These are the people who pretend that the Orwellian names given to things are accurate descriptions. The PATRIOT act was patriotic. The Inflation Reduction Act reduced inflation. The border security bill they blamed Republicans for killing was going to secure the border (as long as you don't count the first 2 million illegal crossers per year). Etc, etc.
In this case, they pretend that the thing named "Network Neutrality" is about making networks neutral when it is really about power and control.
These pe
Re: (Score:2)
You know these threats of the bad things that happened in the USSR really don't scare me living in a country where if I'm murdered there's a 1 in 3 chance that a police officer does it(and we don't exactly have a low murder rate to begin with). "Oh no, not a country where dissidents are suppressed with violence that official investigations cover up" is a thing to say in a country where protestors against police violence routinely turn up "dead by suicide" in suspiciously similar circumstances.
By any strict
Re: (Score:2)
By any strictly objective standard of oppression, you live in a country way way way way way way worse off than even the worst of Stalinist USSR, and not because of "wannabe commissars"
Settle down, Ivan.
Re: (Score:2)
The PATRIOT act was patriotic.
No it wasn't, it was named deceptively to get pushed through quickly with the wave of patiotism
The Inflation Reduction Act reduced inflation.
Seems like you might be confused on this one. There's no doubt that inflation is lower now than before the bill, but a lot of that's probably due to COVID shortages going away.
The border security bill they blamed Republicans for killing...
Of course people blamed republicans when the bipartisan border security bill that Trump personally requested Republicans not vote for so it wouldn't help Biden.
In this case, they pretend that the thing named "Network Neutrality"
Now you're getting a little confused again. Net Neutrality isn't a bill like the
Re: (Score:2)
Net Neutrality is a principle, not a law (although some laws in some jurisdictions try to enforce it). It's not a marketing gimmick law name such as PATRIOT or Inflation Reduction Act.
And yes, it's about making networks neutral. Otherwise, my ISP could make a deal with Netflix and throttle competing streaming services to 500 kbps. Or redirect http://google.com/ [google.com] to http://bing.com./ [bing.com.] I already had an ISP who throttled BitTorrent, so it's happening if you leave ISPs to regulate themselves.
Re:Bad for free speech and net neutrality (Score:4, Insightful)
Trump will either burn down the federal bureaucracy and messy though it will likely be we actually will get a smaller more accountable federal government that
Trump is proof that no one is accountable right now.
Re: Bad for free speech and net neutrality (Score:2)
There are two lefts and two rights. Thereâ(TM)s an economic axis and a social axis. A government can be left on the former and right on the latter, like the USSR was, and it can be economically right and socially left like many Western nations. Of course a government can be right wing on both axes, the way the US seems to be heading.
Economic liberalism and social liberalism aren't the same thing.
Re: (Score:3)
"Orwellian" is a bit of an overused term, but it's very Orwellian.
Definitely an overused term but the doublespeak here is too blatant to not make one. I was thinking the same thing.
"War is peace," "Freedom is slavery," "Ignorance is strength", "Censorship is free speech"
So the government telling the media what to say? (Score:3)
Not sure how that solves any problem with censorship.
Nor how this jibes with the 1st Amendment.
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure how that solves any problem with censorship.
Nor how this jibes with the 1st Amendment.
As another poster has pointed out, SCOTUS has ruled that it's okay for the government to ask a media outlet to say or not say something. And it's okay for the media outlet to say no.
What would violate 1A is if the government passed a law compelling the media to say or not say something.
Nobody is right (Score:2)
Government shouldn't be pressuring, nor even making suggestions, as to what is posted on any internet site, as long as it's legal.
Government also shouldn't be telling sites how they can moderate their content, again beyond what is legal.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Did you see the twitter files? The government 3 letter agencies and the cabinet are the ones that are dictating what is allowed and not allowed. It was/is all social media and not just twitter. The have offices or people from these agencies in offices in these businesses.
Re: (Score:2)
What makes those "twitter files" any more correct than any other information? It's very difficult - and suspect - to make a claim that all media are untrustworthy except the one you prefer/promote.
Personally, I expect that all media is trying to promote one story over another. However, that bias is irrelevant when it comes to free speech; of course people should be free to be biased in their speech. Where Free Speech really matters is that you can openly and freely criticize the Powers that Be without fear
Re: (Score:2)
Did you see the twitter files?
That giant nothing-burger? Yeah, we saw it.
The government 3 letter agencies and the cabinet are the ones that are dictating what is allowed and not allowed.
False. Did you see the twitter files? Apparently not.
Re: (Score:2)
Government shouldn't be pressuring, nor even making suggestions, as to what is posted on any internet site, as long as it's legal.
Government also shouldn't be telling sites how they can moderate their content, again beyond what is legal.
You should probably do a bit more research as to how things become illegal, since you’re using legality as your defense. Government didn’t have First Amendment exceptions. Until they realized they had to (e.g. “Fire!” in a crowded theatre is illegal if unjustified.)
Another prime example, is you defining “hate” in speech and how Government should allow it no matter the impact. Are there valid exceptions? We found them before..
Hypocrites? (Score:2)
So the republicans won't be trying to ban, or severely restrict, porn?
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't bet on it [techdirt.com]
"Rules for thee not for me" is the unofficial GOP slogan.
Anti-regulation Repubs want more regulation (Score:2)
Because they are the exact opposite of what they claim.
So we can get equal time... (Score:2)
...and have socialists respond to right-wing lies?
The enemy of my enemy (Score:2)
As empires go... (Score:2)
Re:This I can get behind (Score:5, Interesting)
Then Twitter and Truth Social can both be forced to stop their censorship of posts. You can't censor when someone says Leon needs to pay more in taxes or the convicted felon is a failure, as both are being done now.
Let the parents dictate what their kids can and cannot see. Parental Controls exist on pretty much every medium today except OTA broadcast TV and radio.
So you want to add another layer to Twitter, Facebook, Insta, etc so parents can control what their kids can see? How will that work?
As for parents deciding what their kids can see, then you agree the state laws regarding pornography [apnews.com] or social media [npr.org] have to go away.
Re: (Score:2)
As somebody who has not tracked this too closely, is that true? I currently would not be able to find anti-Musk or anti-Trump posts on X? Or was it a handful of fishy examples? Or what?
Re: This I can get behind (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Though I don't know what ironicsky may say, I don't think any of your gotcha statements are gotchas.
Censorship has no real place in a modern society.
Then Twitter and Truth Social can both be forced to stop their censorship of posts.
Correct. And I think that's what most people (not all) think when they say there should be no censorship (on internet content in this case).
FWIW, I don't think it's so cut and dry. I do think the gov shouldn't dictate what can be said in a public square, and if some site is supposed to serve as a public square (as Musk has posits X is), then it should not also be the one in charge of content moderation. There
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately given the track record, this would open up broader access / acceptance for Hate Speech to be protected whereas we currently have laws against it. I'll be very interested in seeing what the EFF has to say about this nomination and his track record.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately given the track record, this would open up broader access / acceptance for Hate Speech to be protected whereas we currently have laws against it.
Good? The best part about idiot racists is that they eventually tell you they are idiot racists. Imagine if Richard Spencer was allowed to say the garbage crap he said full throated instead of trying to hide it to avoid censorship. Believe it or not, a majority of the US still looks down on treating races differently, despite the Progressives and Alt-Right trying to knock down colorblindness.
Re:This I can get behind (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is when right-wingers complain about censorship and free-speech, they're not talking about the government suppressing speech or jailing people for speaking their mind, they're talking about being able to say offensive things free from social consequences and forcing people to listen to them.
Look at cases like Twitter - Elon sued advertisers because they wouldn't advertise when he allowed the racists back on, meanwhile he still bans people with opinions he doesn't like.
Right-wingers are constantly complaining about "cancel culture" which is really just the free-market at work.
Re: (Score:2)
Look at cases like Twitter - Elon sued advertisers because they wouldn't advertise when he allowed the racists back on, meanwhile he still bans people with opinions he doesn't like.
All of that is false. He did not sue advertisers
He did.
https://mynbc15.com/news/natio... [mynbc15.com]
https://www.wired.com/story/el... [wired.com]
https://apnews.com/article/x-s... [apnews.com]
https://www.theguardian.com/te... [theguardian.com]
(which doesn't even make sense if you are worried about incentizing them to buy from you).
"Making sense" does not seem to apply to Musk's management of Twitter.
Re: (Score:2)
"Censorship", in public discourse, is generally held to mean "censorship carried out by the government, against individuals and private organizations". That's the thing that we all generally agree is bad.
On the other hand, private rightsholders "censoring" messages on their owned networks is generally a good thing. If you think you disagree, imagine if every other email or notification you got was hardcore tentacle porn. (Or, if you're a tentacle porn guy, if it wasn't, I guess.) Because that's not even
Re: (Score:2)
You have no problem with social media users doxing each other?
Re: (Score:3)
You've got to be kidding... Are you really this uninformed?
1 [brookings.edu]
2 [cnn.com]
That should get you started. There's an AC post above will a bunch of other links if you don't like those for some reason.
Re: (Score:2)
Show me where in Section 230 that 98% and 20% figure come from. Otherwise admit that you just want the rule to apply the way you want. You can do that, just dedicate your life to law and become a supreme court justice and you can interpret things the way *you* want.
Until then, cite the figures.
Re: (Score:2)
Please accept this as an approximate translation:
Re: (Score:2)
It's not covered by S.230.
Bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)