Where does Carr say he wants to repeal Section 230? He doesn't say it in the 2025 section he wrote. He thinks that some additions that were added by Court cases need to be reconsidered. But he doesn't say eliminate the section.Interesting battle shaping up between Brendan Carr and Elon Musk. Carr wants to "reign in big tech" and Elon does not. We'll see who wins.
Elon Musk’s Twitter Takeover Set Off a Race to the Bottom
Social media companies that once at least tried to promote a healthy information ecosystem have largely given up—and insiders say Musk’s example gave them cover.www.wired.com
Carr wants to repeal Section 230 that protects social media sites from lawsuits. Musk is making changes to X so that he will avoid lawsuits over site content.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
The Next FCC
- Thread starter TheBigA
- Start date
- Status
You caused me to reread his article, and you're right. He wants to "reinterpret" Section 230.
What he's talking about is moderation and taking down content they find objectionable. Here's an article on that subject:
Trump’s likely FCC chair wrote Project 2025 chapter on how he’d run the agency
Brendan Carr wants to preserve data caps, punish NBC, and give money to SpaceX.
arstechnica.com
The article also addresses Carr's post about equal time and SNL:
That was what NBC did, giving Trump time in a NASCAR race the next day.
At best, some federal lower courts will delay implementation of certain egregious laws, like posting religious texts in classrooms. The problem is when it reaches SCOTUS, where precedent has no weight and a hard-right majority. And even if they don’t care to weigh in directly to endorse the laws directly, they can dismiss plaintiffs for lack of standing.
Let’s also not pretend that all entities in a category will be frayed the same. Twitter and Truth (🤣🤣) Social are untouchable. Doesn’t matter what the “rules” say. Doesn’t matter what happened in the past. The rules will be for anyone they feel like.
Any doubts about what’s to come should be wiped out by the Z-list Dancing With the Stars level cabinet selections. This is not a normal change in direction, this is amateur hour on steroids.
X-Chan?
That's what Carr is talking about with reinterpretation. In his view, laws are subjective, open to interpretation, so the laws can be applied selectively.
The thing about social media is they've really cut back on taking down content or banning certain users. So they're going to have to go back a while if they want to litigate certain decisions.
The reference is to 4chan, where much of the far-right disinformation had its start.
I suspect it’s less re-litigating specific situations as blanket (and dubious) grievances and making life difficult going forward based on whatever way they want things to be and who they hate at the moment.
Here's an example from the Ars Technica article I posted:
So reinterpret laws to give money to Elon Musk and deny money to NPR.
Jessica Rosenworcel is the current FCC chair. Does her term end with the change in administration?
The chairman resigns on Jan 20 with the new government. That's what Agit Pai did 4 years ago.
Then the new president can nominate a new commissioner, giving his party a majority.
That would be one of the least shocking things imaginable. The corruption, already rampant last time, will be at unprecedented levels.
With no oversight.
Trump May Usher In Massive TV Station Land Grab
Flush with political ad dollars and anticipating a deal-friendly environment, moguls are eyeing big moves to roll up lucrative local broadcasters.
www.hollywoodreporter.com
It's not going to change anything, even if it happens. Broadcast TV is losing audience and aging out. And one of the TV "moguls" interviewed made this point, in reference to TV competing with Big Tech.:Trump May Usher In Massive TV Station Land Grab
Flush with political ad dollars and anticipating a deal-friendly environment, moguls are eyeing big moves to roll up lucrative local broadcasters.
“Google makes 50 times the advertising revenue that any broadcaster does in our markets, and TikTok has a greater share of news viewing by young audiences than any single broadcaster and is owned by a foreign adversary,” Steib said. “And yet today, we’re not allowed to buy a Fox station in Waco, Texas.”
TV is scrambling to compete in today's media marketplace, and it's scrambling to survive. It's not the 1970's anymore when broadcast TV was still king and Cable was just making inroads. The new media landscape has allowed Big Tech firms like Google to compete nationwide, with their content or app operating in every single home, or on every single device, while an individual TV station maybe has a maximum number of 100-500K viewers within reach, if that.
Friendly moderator reminder that there are lots of places for general political discussion. We'd prefer that the conversation here stay focused on the broadcast industry - and of COURSE there's lots of politics around that right now, which is fine, as long as it stays somewhat broadcast-related.
(FCC appointment discussions? Absolutely. Matt Gaetz? Lots of other places for that.)
Thanks!
(FCC appointment discussions? Absolutely. Matt Gaetz? Lots of other places for that.)
Thanks!
Yep. Broadcast TV will probably be at death's door by 2029, regardless of which party had won this year's election.
You should hear the names I'm hearing being discussed for the open FCC slot. Let's just say they're on par with the others he's made.
I hear Alex Jones is looking for work ..
Another thread where we had to lock and delete many of the posts because people cannot keep personal and (unrelated to media) politics part of the discussions. Thread locked.
- Status