Trump's pick to run the FCC has told us what he plans: TikTok ban, space broadband, and Section 230 reform President-elect Donald Trump has announced his choice for head of the United States Federal Communications Commission: a current commissioner, Brendan Carr, whom Trump appointed last time he was in there White House. Carr's an obvious choice. Trump put him on the Commission (FCC) in 2017 and he has remained at the regulator …
Let him take the biscuit - after what it's been throughNSFW, you really don't want to keep it.
This post has been deleted by its author
When is the last time that Goggle or AWS used a small ISP's services? Their employees notwithstanding (who are presumably paying for their internet connection), when has a large tech co. sent unwanted traffic to a small ISP?
Are you suggesting that, should these companies not pay their "dues", they should be blocked, and I should be _unable_ to access their services via the service that *I* am paying for?
Then, what am I paying for?... presumably if Goggle et al. pays for my internet access, then I don't need to. Right?
Perhaps it should be factored in: how often do the big tech co's randomly send data to a given small ISP's endpoint, unrequested? Are the tech co's DoSing small ISPs, knowingly, and without a request being made of them by a customer of the ISP?
---
What you're suggesting is paid cable TV, and we're all going to have to await the days of dial-up internet to come back, as every non-corporate endpoint will be blocked or throttled into non-existance. People will be setting up alternative access points so that information, not corporate propaganda and products, can be reached. Just like they used to: dial-in bulletin boards.
I get the feeling that people already pay for the speeds they want by choosing the package they buy from their ISP. If someone paying for a Gb connection finds they are throttle by the sites such as Youtube etc unless they pay for fast content delivery, then the ISP are very likely to lose out as people realise their Gb connection rarely gets above 100Mb. We are already seeing a reduction in the number buying multiple streaming services due to Balkanisation and proliferation of many, many services that make it unaffordable to buy "all you can eat" any more (and the obvious consequent rise in "piracy"). Doing the same with content providers on the 'net will have similar results longer term.
If you want Meta to pay for your last mile connection then it would be only fair for you to pay for Alphabet's first mile connection. What if you access content from The Register? Should Google have to contribute to the last mile of that? How about when Google serves content to people in Japan. Would you like to be fair and subsidise that? It is far simpler for everyone to pay for their own internet connection.
The old purpose of getting rid of net neutrality was so that the internet service providers could use the (US) duopoly in home internet connections to create new duopolies in other market sectors. They would provide their own Netflix and Facebook services at a higher price and with less quality. They would get customers for the new services by increasing the prices for network access to competitors while simultaneously reducing the quality of their connections.
The new version of net neutrality also incorporates a free speech component. If your company says something Musk does not like then Musk will block access to his internet customers.
I've been following telecom regulation for several decades - back in the days of Ma Bell, funding for last mile access (AKA universal service) in part came from large consumers of telecom services through long distance rates. As for your access to the internet, does your ISP pay rent for the easements needed to route fiber or cable from the ISP's network center to your house or office?
I agree with the OP. I pay a few bucks tax every month on my ISP bill to help subsidize rural broadband. I don't mind too much, since I'm a rural broadband customer too. Let's face it, the person who's connection I helping to subsidize will mostly be using their connection to post on Fecesbook, buy tat from Amazon, and use Google search. Why shouldn't Meta, Amazon, and Alphabet, be chipping in a little too?
No problem. All of your neighbors who also have rural broadband don't read The Register. That means it's only you, so The Register should be paying some amount for each of your neighbors' connections. If they don't think that's worth it, then your ISP should refuse to send The Register's traffic to you. Is this making any sense?
The ISP's job is to sell me a connection to the internet. I decide what traffic I put down that pipe and pay per the terms of that contract. They have no right to demand payment from everyone or anyone I send or receive data from. They can demand it from me for the agreed service. Charging service providers for your connections just allows them to charge two people for the same service you already paid for and to let them mess with everyone by charging someone who never agreed to be in a contract with them.
In the past you could fire someone for being a Republican or Democrat because they were not protected minorities. You could not fire someone for being gay or black because they were protected minorities. It looks like the change is going to be that the only protected minority will be Trump voters. Clearly Trump voters feel discriminated against by fact checkers and the discrimination is going to be replaced by fascist checkers.
I think its a difficult issue as tools such as TikTok utilise psychological manipulation to use them more. They trigger dopamine release, just the same as numerous drugs. So, they're addictive.
The issue is far deeper than these apps though. Why is everyone so unhappy that they need dopamine hits so often?
Have you driven across West Virginia lately? LOTS of giant trucks on the highway with the paint completely scraped off their plates. Just blatantly, brazenly, defying the law. These people are way past the point of being salvageable.
I’m strongly considering buying one or more guns to protect my family because I don’t see how we get out of this without another civil war.
I fear that with the current cop of idiots now actually in charge of the asylum you may be facing more than just civil war.
They know they have 4 years to milk the country dry before even the room temperature IQ sheep become aware they've been had (well, OK, enough of them, for some it's a genetic condition) and a war is still the quickest way to convert what they milked in tax from the population into private equity. Unless, of course, they end the idea of voting altogether, which appears not entirely impossible.
Leaving the country and possibly the world in ruin as a result doesn't even come close to being a consideration.
The US has a diabetic epidemic. Food companies put huge amounts of sugar in processed food to encourage people to eat more. Should we be banning sugar for the health of those who can't moderate their own desires? Or could we perhaps educate people and encourage trends towards healthy alternatives. TikTok could be the white bread of social media.
Sugar is used in bread, but the problem with white bread is that the carbs break down quickly into glucose. In equating TikTok to white bread, I wasn't saying that it was good.
BTW, you may have noticed the bread aisle has gotten smaller in many grocery stores over the last few years. People have been trending away from eating bread. I'd like to think it's because they have gotten educated about food and are choosing healthier options. But that may be too optimistic, the pizza aisle has expanded.
Can't speak for the US, but here in the UK... especially in my part of it. People are trending away from ultra processed breads... basically almost anything made by the chorley method.
A very simple test to tell what kind of bread you are eating.
squish it between two fingers. ultra processed will remain flat, proper bread with be more springy.
Proper bread (most people call it 'artisan' but it's just proper bread, made the proper way) is chewable, it doesn't turn to mush in your mouth. A chunky slice of bread should take a few mins to consume, not a few seconds because it turns to mush in your mouth.
I buy a lot of sourdough, when possible... I know that often means paying £3 for a small loaf, £4-5 for a more special one with added flavours/ingredients or even just a larger loaf. But it's worth every penny in my book. I'll go to a farmers market and buy several loaves, bring them home, slice and freeze some for another day (toasties, making my own croutons and stuff like that).
I can't remember the last time I bought a supermarket loaf of mush
I buy a lot of sourdough, when possible... I know that often means paying £3 for a small loaf, £4-5 for a more special one with added flavours/ingredients
My wife puts various seeds in ours - sometimes it's pumpkin seed, sometimes caraway (hmmm caraway..) sometimes it's just poppy seed on top.
Our sourdough is *very* definately proper bread - springy and elastic when fresh, still light even when it's a bit stale (we only make a small load since there's only two of us - because it doesn't have "flour improvers" or stabilisers in it, it starts going stale after about 2 days. Like proper bread used to.
"BTW, you may have noticed the bread aisle has gotten smaller in many grocery stores over the last few years."
Nope. I make my own bread at home. 'ing delicious and the house smells great too. Water, flour, yeast, salt and occasionally other stuff for different versions. Just ate the last of my deepdish pizza I made the other day with sauce I made and canned in July, onions from the garden and canned peppers from last year. The cheese, pepperoni and mushrooms were store-bought. It's cheap and fun to make. Again, the house smells amazing when it's cooking. It took something around a week for the house to stop smelling like pizza when I made the sauce. You gotta do something when all of the tomatoes seem to come ripe all at the same 'ing time.
Just ate the last of my deepdish pizza I made the other day with sauce I made and canned in July
Got two pizza dough balls in the freezer from the lot I made two weeks ago. I prefer pizza sauce made the traditional Italian way (not cooked) but will happily make a cooked one (olive oil, finely chopped onion, grated garlic, tomato passata (or if chunky sauce is needed, crushed tomato) plus oregano and, maybe, some thyme (depending on the topping). Leftover sauce goes in the freezer).
Making wild boar stew tonight (local farm shop had some pre-chopped wild boar in 600g packs) with mushrooms and lima beans.
Sugar is often used in bread recipes
In small amounts, it enables the yeast to get a decent start while it's breaking down the flour to feed on [1]. Of course, bread in the US really is sweet (as we discovered when we went there some years back - pretty much *everything* has added sugar in it. Too sweet for me, even in pre-diabetic days!).
It's no surprise that the US has the highest obesity rates in the world.
[1] We started making sourdough in lockdown 1 and we still do now - it's an 18-hour process plus the regular feeding of the starter. Not for people that want QUICK RESULTS NOW!
Because no politician is fool enough to speak openly about how that corporate social media employs dark patterns and AI to boost 'engagement,' all while framing news in the language dictated by the ruling oligarchs. The only distinction between TikTok and U.S. corporate social media is that TikTok is operated by Chinese communists, intent on subverting and undermining Western culture. Yet, it is not politically correct to dwell on why TikTok poses a threat, as that would cast a shadow on U.S. social media.
In Washington, the standard operating procedure is to pressure successful enterprises until they make substantial under-the-table payments to the appropriate ruling party players. Don't be surprised if, after much public political theater, some agreement is reached allowing TikTok to remain.
Its difficult because its hard to deny kids something that all their friends use. They feel left out, and even cut off socially.
Its not just children either. lots of adults have a some level of social media addiction.
Yes, personal responsibility matters, but its not as simple as saying "stop doom scrolling" (its like telling a drug addict to "just stop" taking heir heroin) or "actual parenting" (better parental supervision helps, but its difficult to go against social norms).
I have been navigating this with teenage kids (older one now an adult, younger one 16) over the years and it is hard to get the balance right, and it has got harder over the years, especially post lockdown.
Its also easier if you have a good relationship with your kids so you can talk about things with them. Not everyone does - especially not with teenagers
> Something being difficult doesn't necessarily justify using the force of government to make your life easier.
It is a difficult one to be sure. I'm all for restricting the reach of government. However, I look at it in a different way.
The likes of TikTok are selling engagement and, as someone else mentioned above, they are using all sorts of sociological manipulation in their products that depend on our susceptibility to addiction. Most people aren't even aware of it because it is packaged so well. I view it as a kind of fraud or deception.
The call to personal responsibility is reasonable in the main, but despite what many think, we are not rational actors, particularly when we are being manipulated without our awareness of it.
As for kids, yes I agree. Kids shouldn't be getting smartphones until they are mature enough to understand the risks. Our kids got phones but they were pretty dumb and lacked much in the way of performance. They were capable of voice calls and texting and little else. You just have to man up and be the parents. I'm also an advocate of talking to kids about the dangers of these resources and thankfully both our kids are quite savvy enough to understand. Probably why they are both have been interested in psychology as a career.
< "I'm also an advocate of talking to kids about the dangers of these resources..."
100% agree, and I think this is the best solution for adults as well. I'd be fine with governments spending money on campaigns informing the population about how these algorithms prey on our weaknesses.
"Its difficult because its hard to deny kids something that all their friends use."
Ummm, my parents never had that problem. My curfew wasn't based on what time my friends had to be home. If a friend had their own TV (gasp), I don't think that I could use that to get my dad to buy me one as well.
rotting the minds of ordinary people
Back in the Victorian era they discovered that increasing literacy did not necessarily make people more highbrow or worthy. It was even suggested by some that literacy had gone too far. The greater the ease of mass communication, the more it seems to amplify human nature for better or worse. The technology may have changed, but human nature hasn't.
Plato condemned poetry, and all art, which he believed was harmful to children because it was mainly concerned with sensual pleasures. Also because art is fiction and twists the truth. He also thought that poetry served no useful purpose in society; and that it was politically dangerous (poetry moves the masses, which can unseat a Wise and Just ruler).
> It is rotting the minds of ordinary people and especially children.
Where have we heard that before?
Oh I remember! From every generation throughout the history of mankind for as long as we have had writing and probably longer.
Kids these days just don't take the time to appreciate their grandfather's cave art/memorise tradition/study literature/listen to proper music/get off the telly/stop doomscrolling.
> Kids these days just don't take the time to appreciate their grandfather's cave art/memorise tradition/study literature/listen to proper music/get off the telly/stop doomscrolling.
Actually I kinda agree with those older sentiments a little. I think the big difference with the likes of TikTok is that the viewing possibilities are effectively endless and are controlled by the viewer. When I was a kid in the UK, much of what was on the TV was boring and switched me off. I did watch a lot of TV, but I would be inclined to switch it off and go out when there was nothing on worth watching. I think the choice is part of the problem.
For a party that constantly harps on about the constitution, the republicans under Trump seem extremely confused about it.
The 1st Amendment is pretty clear, so regardless of what Trump, Carr or Congress think, they cannot pass rules or laws that force speech or block speech. If they do, the only place they'll end up is in the bin, unless they pass a constitutional amendment.
So, why do they keep trying?
Or pack the supreme court with enough bought judges to get away with it. See Jan 6th.......
If the checks and balances were going to work they needed to be enforced when he tried a coup last time. The fact you've let him have another go at president proves that your checks and balances don't mean shit. They rely on people with integrity.
If the constitution is an effective barrier against ending free speech then work around it. Pick the most vocal detractors and sue them for defamation. Investigate their tax records until something is found. Send the ATF round to tear their houses down in a search for drugs. If the first ten don't solve the problem then pick another ten until everybody censors themselves and spontaneously proclaims their adoration for the supreme leader. It has already started and more has been promised.
The Constitution -- or more accurately, the Bill of Rights -- is really just a nuisance that has to be worked around. The usual way to do this these days is to hand the job of to a corporation. Its a win/win -- the corporation gets to make money and the government' s hands are not only clean, they're free to purchase from the corporation whatever services it has to offer.
Thus, we can't have ANPR, speed cameras and the like because it infringes the Bill of Rights. However, there's nothing stopping the government from contracting with a corporation to provide those services. Which it does. So it is with censorship -- we can't pass laws prohibiting free speech but we certainly can ensure that a handful of corporations become the gatekeepers, abiters of what's 'good' and 'bad' free speech. Since government is effectively captured by corporate interests these days anyway it amounts to government control of speech (and anyone who fancies creative legal argument gets shut down because corporations own SCOTUS, too).
So fact-checking is censorship now, is it? Utter nonsense, and surely banning people from checking facts is a much worse form of actual censorship. Prime hypocrisy too, as Musk has sued people to try and stop them pointing out some nasty stuff on his platform, and I doubt Trump's site is going to allow vast amounts of criticism of the orange one either.
This post has been deleted by its author
the legislative provision that guarantees platforms immunity from litigation over most illegal content posted to their platforms."
You manage to miss out some crucial detail here. Platforms are guaranteed immunity of illegal content that users post. Platforms can't post illegal content themselves. The way you worded this misses out on this crucial distinction. Section 230 makes the people who POST illegal content liable, not the sites that HOST the illegal content.
This is basic stuff that, as a journalist in the post truth era, you ought to be paying more attention to. This kind of vague language allows the liars to get away with it.
More to the point, does The Register want to be come legally liable for everything posted by users on this site?
Platforms can't post illegal content, but they also seem to be exempt from consequences if they put that user-generated illegal content into everybody else's newsfeeds / timeline / whatever. Which I would regard as publishing it - because they actively choose to disseminate it widely. But they claim a naughty algorithm did it and ran away.
So I agree they should have protection. But that protection should become a lot more limited once they've had a complaint, if they fail to take the content down - and they certainly don't deserve protection once they actively begin to disseminate said content in order to increase user engagement and thus sell more adverts. At that point, they're a publisher and should have to live within the rules other publishers do.
Problem with that is that often complaints are because Karen does not agree with your opinion and tries to shut you down. Those platforms don't really care to actually verify if complaints are valid, so if there's any chance they'd be punished for keeping content on their site, they'd choose the safest way and take it down asap - therefore limiting free speech (catch-22?)
"IANAL, but isn't that the position in the UK? That why we have moderators."
Moderation can be used for many things, but most often in a situation like we have here, it's to keep the comments on-topic and mostly free of attack-trolls. There are other sites where the comment section has distilled down to some very rabid racists and aren't a useful place for discussion and reasoned debate.
>El Reg has a moderated comment section, so they do not fall under section 230 protection anyway.
Erm moderated content is precisely what Section 230 covers.
Under the old laws, intended for newspaper letters pages, if you edited any content you were a publisher and so liable for everything you published. The only solution was to allow absolutely everything and claim you were just a pipe and didn't look at any content.
Section 230 gave a reasonable middle groudn: you could do your best to selectively remove the most seriously objectionable material without being liable for every single one of the firehouse of posts.
Section 230 was more a step toward common carrier status. ISPs wanted it so that they wouldn't get sued for their customers sharing music and videos and violating copyrights. IE. you don't sue the phone company over customers making drug deals.
The problem is when you move from common carrier (complete hands off) to moderating, then those companies are acting like publishers. It's a catch-22 for social media sites. We demand that they remove 'objectionable' content, which makes them responsible for determining what is objectionable. If we want to legislate full moderation, who determines what is acceptable? And if we say, don't moderate but respond to takedown notices, who arbitrates those?
Section 230 does need clarification so that the organizations that it applies to have guidance. You can't do "I can't quantify what defines porn, but I know it when I see it." And I don't trust the current group of politicians to set the standards.
New accounts on the Reg need their comments manually approved, and only when you are 'trusted' do they let your comments automatically be shown, so the reg is acting as a publisher for comments since it pre-moderates comments. This is different from what Section 230 covers where sites do moderation after the comments has been made.
That's not in the text. The text is really short. Here is the part about protection of moderation. Tell me where it says that only post-moderation counts:
No provider or user of an Definitions - interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B) any action taken to enable or make available to Definitions - information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1]
Current situation: You can post whatever you like but the Feds may come calling. You can read whatever anyone posts unless a court orders its removal.
Carr's proposed situation: Nothing you post will be visible unless the platform lawyers decide there's no legal liability.
Unless I've misunderstood this section 230 thingy (possible as I'm not in the USA,) the proposed situation is going to result in more censorship.
Before section 230 sites had a choice -- they could do no moderation at all, or they could be held responsible for user-supplied content. Most sites chose just to not have user supplied content; things like message boards and comment sections didn't really become common on a large scale until after section 230 made them less legally risky.
things like message boards and comment sections didn't really become common on a large scale until after section 230 made them less legally risky.
I'm not sure what Internet you've been using, but the one I have been on was built around message boards. Systems designed for conversations, not just commenting on articles. And Usenet was more than just downloading binaries.
Usenet binaries is a perfect example why ISPs wanted carrier status. Users wanted a full feed, but ISPs were worried that the RIAA/MPAA would sue them for copyright infringement. They were the deep pockets, and the people posting were essentially anonymous. This, along with data volume, is why ISPs dropped the binary groups.
Their concerns were justified with other technologies like Napster, Limewire, and currently Torrent.
And I think you are confused about section 230. Prior to the CDA it was up to the legal system to decide if ISPs were responsible for content on their systems. It didn't matter whether they moderated or not. Section 230 added "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.", which basically stated if you were hands-off, you are not responsible. Once you start moderating you are controlling content and acting like a publisher.
More recently Congress has taken the 'think of the children' approach, making service providers responsible for removing certain types of content. Child porn, explicit violence, bullying, etc. This is in direct conflict with Section 230 and the reason it needs to be revisited.
Would a 'free speech' law in the UK equivalent to those in Texas and Florida put an end to the online Daily Telegraph 'shadow-banning' some of its own paying subscribers? Shadow-banning is more egregious than simple censorship by pre-moderation or by later deletion (e.g. as was, perhaps still is, found in the Guardian, and persists at the BBC). I am referring to expression of contrarian opinion (e.g. about funding NATO's proxy war in Ukraine) rather than so-called “hate speech” and obscenity.
From screenshots taken a couple of years ago, I have incontrovertible evidence for my contention about the Telegraph; incidentally, the Telegraph comment system is (or was) outsourced to Canada.
Furthermore, I doubt the Telegraph was (still is?) alone in this dreadful practice. Whilst censorship by pre-moderation or deletion is deplorable, shadow-banning is also in the realm of deception: when paying subscribers are involved, there is taking money under false pretences.
>“The fight over net neutrality has never really been about net neutrality," he said in 2020. "That is the sheep's clothing. It has always been about rate regulation – a surefire way to kill innovation and scare off investment.”
Might as well get rid of consumer protections, worker's rights along with vacations and paid sick leave while we're at it, those are awful and scary for innovators and investors as well.
Like Jimmy Kimmel said, though more nicely--you Trumptards voted for him, you lost too, you just don't know it yet. (He didn't say Trump-tards).
I won't get political, I'll just state facts, and remember you voted for him.
You now have elected a president who is a convicted felon. Also found guilty in civil court of sexual abuse.
You're getting an anti vaxxer in charge of health. Hopefully, this means none of them will get vaccinations.
You're getting someone who was under investigation for sex trafficking, sexual misconduct, and ethics as attorney general.
Of course, Vance is such a snake, I think there's hope he'll have the president declared unfit and take over. He can use these cabinet selections as evidence.
I will say I have no sympathy for any Latins, Muslims, or women who voted for him. Now, you're gonna get what you voted for. Maybe you all think this is a good thing, who knows.
Supposedly, people think that he will help their grocery prices go down or something. A man who managed to bankrupt two casinos. Not making a judgement, just stating facts.
"The "censorship cartel" has been one of Carr's main themes for years. It refers to the idea that Big Tech companies are suppressing conservative voices and censoring views with which they don't agree"
This is not an "idea" this is fact and can be evidenced. Big Tech IS smothering voices it doesn't like. This has relaxed a little since Musk allowed the Twitter files to be published but is still going on, just less so with known voices that are able to yell when it happens.
Also, this "conservatve" or even "far right" tag makes little sense. The conservatives appear to be most liberal; anti-war, for free speech, pro medical choice, less government. The tagging of "far" or even "extreme" right is thrown about with abandon to try and close people down and this is extremely dangerous. If there comes a true far-right it may get ignored when called out and frankly I think the Dems and woke brigade were heading there with their intolerance of traditional views. To me it is the so called left that screams hatred for any dissenters.
However, banning anything (Tiktok) otherwise legal is the height of stupidity. You either have free speech or you don't. People need to be educated to be more cynical and sceptical about what they are presented with. Free speech is not just what you want to hear.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
