Incoming Federal Communications Commission chief Brendan Carr (see NEW: Trump Announces Who Will Become Chairman of the FCC) has sent a very explicit letter to CEOs of so-called Big Tech companies, giving them a choice of reducing their reliance on fact-checking sites, such as NewsGuard, which seek to censor content on the internet or facing increased regulation by the FCC. The letter specifically calls into question whether “moderation” decisions based on information provided by third parties could pass muster as “good faith” when that information is, itself, bogus or corrupt.
I am confident that once the ongoing transition is complete, the Administration and Congress will take broad ranging actions to restore the First Amendment rights that the Constitution grants to all Americans — and those actions can include both a review of your companies’ activities as well as efforts by third-party organizations and groups that have acted to curtail those rights.
For now, I am writing to obtain information from you that can inform the FCC’s work to promote free speech and a diversity of viewpoints. As you know, Big Tech’s prized liability shield, Section 230, is codified in the Communications Act, which the FCC administers. As relevant here, Section 230 only confers benefits on Big Tech companies when they operate, in the words of the statute, “in good faith.”
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. Indeed, NewsGuard bills itself as the Internet’s arbiter or, as its co-founder put it, a “Vaccine Against Misinfortnation.” NewsGuard purports to rate the credibility of news and information outlets and tells readers and advertisers which outlets they can trust. As the U.S. House Committee on Small Business 2024 Staff Report stated, “[t]hese ratings, combined with NewsGuard’s vast partnerships in the advertising industry, select winners and losers in the news media space.” NewsGuard does so by leveraging its partnerships with advertising agencies to effectively censors targeted outlets.
…
But NewsGuard’s own record raises questions about whether relying on the organization’s products would constitute “good faith” actions within the meaning of Section 230. For one, reports indicate that NewsGuard has consistently rated official propaganda from the Conununist Party of China as more credible than American publications. For another, NewsGuard aggressively fact checked and penalized websites that reported on the COVID-19 lab leak theory. For still another, the Small Business Committee and multiple Media Research Center studies detail numerous instances where NewsGuard apparently does not apply its own rating system in an even-handed manner. The list goes on.