By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In his Project 2025 policy proposal, FCC Commissioner Carr advocated for curbing Big Tech censorship, proposing that content moderation be limited to illegal material, thereby empowering users to select their preferred content filters. This approach aligns with the actions of Elon Musk at X (formerly Twitter), creating an environment receptive to conservative viewpoints. Furthermore, Carr urged a TikTok ban unless ByteDance divested its U.S. operations, citing national security concerns related to the flow of information. These proposals represent a significant shift towards deregulation and user control over online content.
Read the original article here
Trump’s nomination of a Project 2025 author to lead the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) represents a significant escalation in his ongoing conflict with the press. This isn’t a sudden, terrifying turn; it’s a continuation of a pattern established years ago, a direct path towards consolidating power and silencing dissent. The sheer audacity of the move, following his previous denials of any involvement with Project 2025, highlights a blatant disregard for transparency and accountability.
This appointment isn’t merely symbolic; it carries immense practical implications. Control of the FCC grants considerable power over the media landscape, allowing for potential censorship, the suppression of critical voices, and the manipulation of information flow. The details within Project 2025, a plan outlining sweeping changes across various sectors, raise serious concerns about the future of democratic institutions and individual liberties. The document’s proposals, ranging from dismantling unions to eliminating overtime pay, paint a picture of a profoundly authoritarian agenda.
Many are questioning the press’s role in this unfolding scenario. Some argue that the media’s past practices, such as the tendency to present a “balanced” portrayal of Trump despite his demonstrably false statements and dangerous rhetoric, contributed to his rise to power. This seemingly neutral approach arguably allowed his harmful ideologies to proliferate without sufficient challenge. The current situation is thus viewed by some as a form of karmic retribution – a consequence of the media’s failure to critically examine and expose the threat Trump represented.
However, framing this as simply a matter of the press receiving what it deserves overlooks the gravity of the situation. The potential consequences of an FCC controlled by someone aligned with Project 2025 extend far beyond the media. The erosion of free speech, the undermining of independent journalism, and the suppression of dissenting opinions are clear and present dangers to a healthy democracy. The potential for the misuse of power extends to various aspects of governance and daily life, affecting everything from labor rights to economic policies.
The widespread outrage expressed is justified. Project 2025 is not merely a political document; it is a blueprint for a significant shift towards authoritarianism. Concerns regarding its proposals are not alarmist hyperbole but legitimate anxieties rooted in the plan’s concrete and far-reaching implications. The potential for the systematic dismantling of democratic institutions and the erosion of fundamental rights is a serious threat that cannot be ignored.
Some express a sense of resignation, feeling overwhelmed by the sheer scale of the threat and the apparent inability to effectively counter it. The perception that significant sections of the population remain either unmoved or actively supportive of Trump’s agenda fuels this sense of helplessness. The belief that this development is merely the latest in a series of actions that ultimately will lead to an erosion of American democracy is widespread.
The ongoing focus on the “terrifying turn” misses the point; this isn’t a sudden shift but the logical conclusion of Trump’s consistent actions and rhetoric. The repeated warnings issued over the years about the potential dangers he presented have consistently been ignored, downplayed or otherwise disregarded. The current situation is thus the predictable outcome of previous choices and inactions, both at an individual and institutional level.
The ultimate responsibility lies with the electorate. The widespread acceptance of misinformation, the normalization of divisive rhetoric, and the lack of critical engagement with political discourse have all contributed to the current crisis. The power to shape the political landscape rests ultimately with the people, and the failure to exercise this power responsibly has created the fertile ground for the current threat to democracy.
There is a palpable sense of foreboding regarding what the future holds. The fear isn’t merely hypothetical; it is based on a realistic assessment of the potential consequences of Trump’s continued actions and the implementation of the agenda laid out in Project 2025. The concerns range from the blatant undermining of democratic norms to the potential for widespread social unrest and political instability. The silence of many in the face of this developing crisis adds to the sense of impending doom.