[ad_1]
Although President-elect Donald Trump was expected to halt the impending ban on TikTok, his political appointments suggest otherwise.
Trump announced on Sunday that he had chosen Brendan Carr to head the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which regulates the Internet, news media and other forms of communication. Carr, who was appointed to the FCC by Trump in 2017, authored the Heritage Foundation’s 2025 Commission Project chapter, outlining an agenda that sometimes contradicts the president-elect’s promises.
“TikTok poses a serious and unacceptable risk to US national security,” Carr wrote in Project 2025. “It also provides Beijing with an opportunity to run a foreign influence campaign by determining the news and information the app feeds to millions of Americans.”
Although there is no public evidence of the Chinese government accessing the data of American TikTok users, there has been evidence of it guide ByteDance, the Chinese parent company of TikTok, has accessed TikTok user data.
Trump’s current stance on unbanning TikTok is surprising, given that he essentially signed an executive order Block the application In 2020, at the end of his first term. But after Joe Biden took office, Trump’s executive order became moot. However, the Biden government ended up reaching a similar conclusion; The president signed a bill that would force ByteDance to sell the app, even though the Chinese group is doing so improbable To comply.
“Without TikTok, you can make Facebook bigger, and I consider Facebook an enemy of the people,” Trump said. He told CNBC In March. Share this feeling Social truth Also, he claimed that Mark Zuckerberg’s company is the “true enemy of the people.”
In his statement regarding Carr’s appointment, Trump did not address the clear differences between them.
“Commissioner Carr is a freedom fighter who has fought against regulations that have stifled Americans’ freedoms and crippled our economy,” Trump said. books.
Carr’s concern about Chinese influence extends to the sale of Chinese telecommunications equipment, such as cell phones. Currently, Chinese hardware company Huawei cannot sell equipment in the United States without FCC approval, and Carr believes the FCC should be more vigilant about evaluating products from Chinese manufacturers. He even wants to invest an additional $3 billion in “Rip and replace“A program that compensates telecom providers for replacement equipment from Huawei and ZTE, another Chinese company that makes telecom equipment.
While Carr has taken a largely non-regulatory approach to the FCC, he is adamant about imposing increased restrictions on technology companies.
“We must dismantle the censorship cartel and restore the free speech rights of ordinary Americans,” Carr said. books On
This position extends to Section 230, part of the Communications Decency Act that, among other things, protects online service providers — such as social media networks — from liability for user-generated content they host. Therefore, if someone posts something illegal on a social media app, the user is responsible for potential repercussions, not the app. Section 230 also allows online organizations to remove and moderate material posted by third parties.
Organizations like the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) say repealing this partisan legislation, which has been in place for more than 25 years, could pose a threat to freedom of expression online.
“Without the protection of Section 230, many online intermediaries will filter and monitor user speech extensively, while others may not host user content at all,” EFF said. books. “This strengthens First Amendment protections for publishers to decide what content to distribute.”
But Carr is pushing for Section 230 reform on the grounds that it allows social media platforms to “push diverse political viewpoints from the digital city square.” He believes the FCC should work with Congress to ensure that “internet companies no longer have carte blanche to censor protected speech while maintaining Section 230 protections.”
Section 230 has faced legal challenges at the Supreme Court level but has yet to undergo major reform. Last year, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Twitter and Google in two adjacent cases that sought to hold the platforms liable for hosting Islamic State content promoting the terrorist organization in connection with violent attacks.
The same Supreme Court that presided over those cases will remain in control for the foreseeable future, and will likely be able to hear more challenges against the Internet law in the coming years.
[ad_2]