Post

Or that Brendan Carr, Trump's pick to head the FCC, sent Meta a letter right after the election telling Zuck that fact checking was against the First Amendment and Carr was poised to take action if Meta kept fact checking. www.fcc.gov/sites/defaul...

fcc.govfcc.gov
Ricardo Sanchez@ricardodsanchez.bsky.social

Also, I'm surprised Zuckerberg discussed pressure from the Biden team but never mentioned how Trump threatened to throw him in jail. Why wasn’t that brought up in his conversation with Joe Rogan? It seems like a pretty important detail to leave out. www.politico.com/news/2024/08...

669 reposts2.3K likes

This a joke ? Carr is a lawyer and he’s quoting “selling burgers “as a source Then references the twitter files please for the love of God tell me I’ve misunderstood this

And this is why if Dems take the White House in 2028 Zuck will be acting like a French born Nazi collaborator trying to hook up with the first American GI tank driver that rolled into Paris. “Who me, I was with you guys the whole time”

The pathetic irony here is that a free enterprise moderating content on its social media platform is not a 1st amendment violation but the government pressuring a free enterprise on how to do its content moderation is arguably a 1st amendment violation.

Sadly, much of the country, including “leaders” like Carr and Elon, completely misunderstand the 1st amendment. If Zuck buckled under that threat he either somehow doesn’t understand the 1st amendment or he’s a coward (or both).

The 1st. amendment protects us from what the government can do to us. 1st. amendment gives you the right to lie. The question is whether or not its fundamentally wrong and immoral to lie, or agents of state to lie. It doesn't protect you from what the public will do to you if they keep lying

Or that fact-checking is not, in fact, against the first amendment, which specifically states that the GOVERNMENT may not suppress speech. It says nothing about a private business stopping its pig toilet users from calling trans people 'it.'

Is there a nuance, given by Carr, that using fact checking as a basis for *removing posts* is against 1A (again, I personally am not claiming that), but not fact checking commentary like community/company notes next to the post.

You can read is letter for yourself since I linked to it. I don't see that nuance. Second, private companies removing speech is not a 1A issue at all (other than that their own editorial discretion is protected under 1A) unless it was under orders from a gov't entity.

Outside of 1A, isn't there a grey area where removing posts, even without govt pressure, shows editorial discretion in content, which removes section 230 protections more broadly.

No. You have it exactly backwards. Section 230 says you can remove posts all you want without liability. Which is also *protected* by the 1st Amendment.

The letter is blackmail, pure and simple! Carr threatens to revoke Section 230 of the Communications Act's liability protection to Big Tech companies for content posted by users on their platforms. Gives context to Zuckerberg's elimination of fact checking.

Does this also apply to the news media? If the press fact checks the lies spewed out by Trump and Musk, etc will they be in legal jeopardy? Really, folks, we are sinking deep into George Orwell territory.

From the letter: "As exposed by the Twitter Files, [fact checker] NewsGuard is a for-profit company that operates as part of the broader censorship cartel." But Elon Musk buying the 'public square' to spam and censor is not for-profit company censorship?

Seriously? That's not remotely against the 1st, especially since Facebook /is a private company/. We're right back into "free speech means freedom from consequences" territory. Not to mention that "You can't even tell us when we're wrong" is... um, so concerning on so many other levels.

It has ALWAYS been about letting social media spout their conspiracy theories and lies! Just like now, where all the critics on the right don't know a thing about what happened, how to solve it, how to fix it, how to prevent it, or how to pay for it.

Hi @mmasnick.bsky.social flagging an update on Carr. bsky.app/profile/medi...

The Media and Democracy Project@mediaanddemocracy.bsky.social

This is ominous: the weaponization of the federal government via the FCC has begun. Trump FCC Chair #BrendanCarr wielding the power of *our* FCC (on behalf of Trump) against the corporate parent of CBS News should disturb all Americans. This is a threat to #PressFreedom nypost.com/2025/01/10/m...

This is where a reputation for honesty would help, if he was known for being honest and open we might be able to excuse some of the obvious lying and not worry so much about what is getting said in those secret meetings with Trump.

He's Pai without principles. Pai for all his problems did have an underlying set of principles, of the traditional conservative variety. Carr just seeks power.

He's been so obvious about it too, with those suck-up op-eds criticizing Dems for slow rural broadband rollout but BEAD isn't the whole game, and it takes a hot minute to set up a huge federal program, especially when most of it is happening in the middle of a pandemic. Meanwhile,

I’m assuming if you ask CattGPT to make an argument more convincing enough times, they’ll put the point in cartoonish font with a poorly drawn stick figure. Randall Monroe has done more for explaining complicated concepts than anyone alive today.