Trump's likely FCC chair wrote Project 2025 chapter on how he'd run the agency
Trump’s reported preference for FCC commissioner Brendan Carr as a future chair is prompting concern over an agenda that combines deregulation of ISPs, rollback of net neutrality, and aggressive moves against “Big Tech,” including efforts to weaken Section 230 protections for social media platforms. Commenters argue that stripping 230 would either force heavy-handed censorship or wipe out many user-generated content sites, while potentially enabling selective enforcement against disfavored speech. The debate broadens into worries about partisan capture of regulatory agencies and courts, the erosion of institutional checks, and the long-term impact on free expression and democratic accountability.
Overall view of a Carr-led FCC / Project 2025
- Many see the plan as openly telegraphed: roll back regulation, punish “Big Tech,” reward allies, and pursue grievances rather than coherent policy.
- Commenters highlight tension: criticizing “New Deal–era heavy-handed regulation” while seeking aggressive FCC intervention against social media, TV content, Section 230, etc.
- Comparisons are made to Ajit Pai and expectations of dropping net neutrality defense; many predict outcomes favoring large ISPs and politically friendly platforms.
- Some expect clientelism toward figures like Musk and fossil fuel interests and say loyalty to Trump, not public interest, will be the main selector.
Section 230, platform liability, and moderation
- Large subthread on whether limiting Section 230 is desirable.
- One side: wants platforms like Meta to be responsible for misinformation or at least for algorithmic amplification; argues current power is already unaccountable and akin to editorial control.
- Other side: stresses that 230 is safe harbor for intermediaries, not blanket indemnity; removing it would:
- Kill or radically shrink user-generated content sites (including HN, Reddit, Truth Social, X).
- Entrench only the biggest firms that can afford legal risk.
- Incentivize over-moderation and censorship to avoid lawsuits.
- Disagreement over whether algorithms and large-scale moderation turn platforms into publishers and thus justify more liability.
Misinformation, truth, and free speech
- Disagreement on whether companies should be arbiters of truth:
- Some propose knowledge-graph-based fact systems and more accountability.
- Others ask “who decides?” and note moving targets (lab-leak theory, election claims).
- Strong concern about government defining “misinformation,” especially via targeted 230 changes, as an avenue for viewpoint-based censorship.
Courts, Chevron, and constraints on the FCC
- Some argue post-Chevron courts and litigation will slow or block aggressive FCC moves.
- Others counter that recent Supreme Court behavior appears partisan and inconsistent, so legal checks are unreliable.
Broader political stakes and democracy
- Debate on whether elections and institutions will meaningfully constrain overreach, versus fears of an entrenching illiberal system (gerrymandering, compliant courts, social media ecosystems).
- Some see Trump as a unique personality cult that ends with him; others view him as a symptom of a longer-lasting authoritarian movement.
Media narratives and evidence
- Skepticism toward “Trump’s likely X” appointment stories and advocacy-group–driven coverage; some warn against getting distracted by speculative or weakly sourced outrage ahead of concrete actions.