Trump’s Pick for FCC Chairman Targets Big Tech ‘Censorship Cartel’

In a letter to Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Apple, Brendan Carr warned the companies they may lose the protections they enjoy under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996.

by Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D.

In a letter to the CEOs of Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Apple, Brendan Carr, President-elect Donald Trump’s pick for chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), accused the tech giants of “improper conduct” and participating in a “censorship cartel” that has “silenced Americans.”

The four-page letter, sent Nov. 13, also addressed the companies’ dealings with “fact-checking” firm NewsGuard — the subject of a congressional investigation over “censorship concerns” and its ties to the Biden administration.

The letter also warned the companies that they may be subject to investigation and regulatory actions under the Trump administration, including the potential loss of protections they enjoy under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, described as “Big Tech’s prized liability shield.”

Section 230 insulates tech companies from lawsuits concerning third-party content posted on their platforms.

The companies have until Dec. 10 to respond to the FCC about their partnerships with NewsGuard.

In a statement, Carr told Newsmax he sent the letter because “the American people are tired of Big Tech censorship and media bias.”

Trump tapped Carr — an FCC commissioner since 2017 — for the FCC’s top post on Nov. 17, describing him as a “warrior for Free Speech.” Carr previously authored the chapter on the FCC in the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 initiative, calling for Section 230 reform.

“Congress should do so by ensuring that Internet companies no longer have carte blanche to censor protected speech while maintaining their Section 230 protections,” Carr wrote.

‘Major reversal from censorship back to genuine free speech’

Jeffrey Tucker, president and founder of the Brownstone Institute, told The Defender Carr’s nomination and letter “represent a major reversal from censorship back to genuine free speech” and “holds out the possibility of making it very clear that the internet will not be micromanaged by government and corporate stakeholders but rather by users themselves.”

“The First Amendment has faced tests throughout American history and always prevailed in time,” Tucker said. “This seems to be another occasion of precisely this. If this is handled well, it could be an inspiration to the world.”

W. Scott McCollough, an Austin, Texas-based technology attorney, also welcomed efforts to investigate Big Tech for its role in censoring Americans.

“I agree that Big Tech in general, and many of the platforms, have targeted certain viewpoints and perspectives and vigorously suppressed ‘wrongthink,’” McCollough told The Defender. “Their collaboration with NewsGuard and others … should be investigated and stopped by Congress, state legislatures and the courts.”

However, McCollough questioned whether the FCC can take regulatory action against Big Tech firms. He said:

“Carr is right in what he says about the issue [but] nothing in the Communications Act grants regulatory jurisdiction over these companies in the capacity he is addressing them.

“But I don’t understand why he thinks the FCC in general, or he in particular as an individual commissioner (and future chair), has any authority over the matter, because they don’t. The demand for responses to him has no legal basis and is unenforceable.”

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) or the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) might be able to take regulatory action against the Big Tech firms, McCollough said.

According to Inc., “Until now actions against ‘big tech’ issues have mainly been championed by the DOJ and the Federal Trade Commission” because the FCC “does not necessarily have the requisite jurisdiction or authority” to act against Big Tech’s alleged “censorship cartel.”

However, Carr could use the FCC chairperson role as a “‘bully pulpit’ to pressure companies to achieve his goals — including blocking mergers and acquisitions,” Inc. added.

California-based attorney Rick Jaffe told The Defender “The super good news is that there is going to be an aggressive regulator looking hard at these issues and it looks like the new administration will be fighting against social media censorship on some key issues.”

This may oblige Big Tech companies to “rethink” their practices in a way that ongoing free speech lawsuits such as Missouri v. Biden haven’t required them to do. Eliminating Section 230 protections “would open them all up to lawsuits,” Jaffe said.

Censorship cartel ‘an affront to Americans’ constitutional freedoms

In his letter, Carr said that according to the Communications Decency Act, Section 230 protections apply only to companies operating “in good faith.” Carr implied that the companies’ partnerships with NewsGuard may violate this “good faith” provision.

Carr wrote:

“It is in this context that I am writing to obtain information about your work with one specific organization — the Orwellian named NewsGuard. … As exposed by the Twitter Files, NewsGuard is a for-profit company that operates as part of the broader censorship cartel.”

Carr noted that NewsGuard’s own track record “raises questions about whether relying on the organization’s products would constitute ‘good faith’ actions within the meaning of Section 230.” For example, Carr said, “NewsGuard aggressively fact checked and penalized websites that reported on the COVID-19 lab leak theory.”

According to Carr, NewsGuard participates in the “censorship cartel” by “leveraging its partnerships with advertising agencies to effectively censors [sic] targeted outlets” in order to “defund, demonetize, and otherwise put out of business news outlets and organizations that dared to deviate from an approved narrative.”

According to Newsmax, “NewsGuard partners with advertising agencies that use their rating systems to deny conservative media advertising revenues.” These agencies include Publicis, IPG, OMG, Magnite, OpenX and Comscore.

“This censorship cartel is an affront to Americans’ constitutional freedoms and must be completely dismantled,” Carr wrote. “Big Tech companies silenced Americans for doing nothing more than exercising their First Amendment rights.”

Carr also addressed NewsGuard’s system of assigning websites credibility scores, describing this as “an apparent effort to suppress their information and viewpoints, including through efforts to delist them, lower their rankings, or harm their profitability.”

NewsGuard uses its own credibility scores to rebut FCC letter

In a response to Carr’s letter, NewsGuard claimed its work “does not involve any censorship or blocking of speech at all” and denied any wrongdoing.

NewsGuard also drew on its own credibility scores for news websites to claim that Carr’s letter relied on information from untrustworthy sources. “Every statement in the letter about NewsGuard is false, citing unreliable sources” with “low credibility scores,” NewsGuard said.

In June, Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability, demanded NewsGuard disclose all current and past contracts with U.S. and foreign government entities. Last month, Comer sent a follow-up letter to NewsGuard, seeking additional documents related to the contracts.

“Our investigation has particularly focused on abuse of government authority to censor American citizens under the guise of protecting them from so-called misinformation,” Comer wrote last month.

According to USASpending.gov, NewsGuard received a $749,387 contract from the U.S. Department of Defense in September 2021.

“The censorship racket has been well exposed by researchers and court documents, and users are well aware of it,” Tucker said. “The platforms that cooperated very closely with the government during the COVID years to censor and curate information probably have profound regrets now.”

Aside from any FCC actions against Big Tech, “The other shoe to drop could come from the FTC and the DOJ’s antitrust division,” Jaffe said.

“I think we probably need a modern-day version of Teddy Rosevelt, who broke up Standard Oil in the early 20th century,” Jaffe said. “With that one-two punch, maybe those folks in Silicon Valley will get the message.”