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.
https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/DOC-407732A1.pdf
https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/DOC-407732A1.pdf
Comments
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
That was the risk 10 years ago - if you don't moderate you risk being called out in legal cases where injuries or deaths occur
"Trump wrote in a July post on Truth Social that if elected he would pursue “ELECTION FRAUDSTERS at levels never seen before, and they will be sent to prison for long periods of time. We already know who you are. DON’T DO IT! ZUCKERBUCKS, be careful!”
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/08/28/trump-zuckerberg-election-book-00176639
1 A is to do with government restrictions on freespeach
Mentions Michael Shellenberger and the twitter files like they are reliable and undisputed sources of truth
IMHO we are in deep do do
In Carr’s case, it’s obvious he doesn’t, and non-sensical to put someone one like that at the FCC.
In Zuckerberg’s case, he has an army of lawyers to teach him, so it’s either deliberate, to placate a small, influential group, or he somehow forgot.
Or he's just as absolutely fucking useless as trump and musk, despite their continuing propaganda of being 'geniuses'. 🤔 🥴
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
Great.
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.
https://www.techdirt.com/2018/04/13/ted-cruz-demands-return-fairness-doctrine-which-he-has-mocked-past-due-to-misunderstanding-cda-230/
You’re still free to lie, but others are equally free to prove you wrong.
This country is descending into stupidity at war speed.
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.
(It's funny how many alleged 'leftists' want the FCC to be able to regulate the Internet. That they say this even when Trump is taking power makes me suspect they're actually far-right trolls.)
"Free speech cartoonist" would inappropriately impart Zuck with some talent.
So, "Free speech buffoonist."
"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?
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.
Any response should be public record, no?
And Meta wasn’t the only recipient.
https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/DOC-407732A1.pdf
https://bsky.app/profile/mediaanddemocracy.bsky.social/post/3lfj2yadofk2w
What's yours?