The speech police: Chairman Brendan Carr and the FCC’s news distortion policy

FCC invokes 1960s-era policy to punish media after decades of minimal enforcement.

See full article...

 

[VoidWeaver]

I can't tell whether you're taking a huge bong hit before you write this stuff, or if you abuse an LLM by telling it to rewrite the same ancient bog-standard screed about hypocrisy but purpler and more prolix.
In either case, worth only a chortle and a downvote.

If calling out your selective embrace of censorship sounds to you like a tired old "screed," perhaps that's because hypocrisy, no matter how artfully rationalized, eventually reveals itself as rather tedious. Whether under the influence of a bong or an LLM, I’d wager clarity still exceeds that of those who cheered content moderation until it inevitably swung back to bite them. Your chortle is noted, but the irony remains undiminished.

I love how easily you conflate government censorship of media with platforms who chose to engage fact-checkers or use their own standards of content moderation. The beauty of the First Amendment and Section 230 is that it gives every platform the right to determine their own standards. Ars can have theirs; Facebook can require clickbait and rage content and Truth Social can ban truth entirely. The key factor is that people can choose to engage with those platforms or not.

There is only one US government, and we're stuck with it. That's why government censorship is far more pernicious than a platform who won't let you use slurs on their servers or on their pages. Government seeking punishment for disagreements about what "truth" is are precisely the kind of nonsense that is explicitly banned by the 1A and Carr should be tossed for it. Facebook taking down your post isn't in the same league at all, and your dishonest joining of the concepts is ridiculous.

Ah, but you overlook the inconvenient truth that platforms like Facebook were hardly acting out of pure private enterprise. Rather, they bowed under relentless pressure and "guidance" from NGOs and agencies that are effectively extensions of government will, entities you once applauded as noble warriors against "disinformation." This blurred distinction between private moderation and state censorship was precisely the slope I warned against. It's hardly "ridiculous" to call out hypocrisy when your standards seem to shift with political convenience.