President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee to lead the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Brendan Carr, is poised to bring significant changes to the regulatory landscape governing Big Tech.

Carr, a long-time critic of large social media platforms, has set his sights on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a legal provision that underpins the modern internet by shielding platforms from liability for third-party content.

Carr’s perspective, outlined in the conservative think tank Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, aligns with a broader push by both Trump and his predecessor, Joe Biden, to reform or eliminate Section 230. Many see this as a necessary correction to Big Tech’s outsized influence, while others argue it could stifle free expression and disrupt the internet as we know it.

Section 230 grants social media platforms immunity from legal consequences for user-generated content. This allows platforms like Meta, X (formerly Twitter), and YouTube to host millions of posts without the risk of being held liable for harmful or defamatory content. For example, if a user libels someone on X, the individual is accountable, but the platform is protected.

Exceptions to Section 230 exist for copyright violations, facilitating illegal activity, or failing to honor moderation promises. However, these carve-outs are narrow, and critics like Carr argue that courts have expanded the law far beyond its original intent.

In Project 2025, Carr lambasts this expansive interpretation: “Courts have construed Section 230 broadly to confer on some of the world’s largest companies a sweeping immunity that is found nowhere in the text of the statute,” he said.

Carr’s Vision for Reform

Carr proposes a dramatic reinterpretation of Section 230 through FCC directives, aiming to strip Big Tech of legal immunities he deems “non-textual.” His rhetoric reflects a growing consensus in Washington that Big Tech wields too much power without accountability.

“It is hard to imagine another industry in which a greater gap exists between power and accountability,” Carr wrote.

He also emphasizes limiting platforms’ ability to remove content without user notification, a practice Republicans argue disproportionately targets conservative voices.

Both Trump and Biden have called for Section 230’s repeal, albeit for different reasons.

Democrats, led by Biden, criticize Big Tech for enabling the unchecked spread of misinformation, harmful content, and opaque algorithms.

Republicans, including Trump, accuse platforms of censoring conservative voices under the guise of content moderation.

Biden’s position was encapsulated in a 2023 Wall Street Journal op-ed, where he wrote: “We need Big Tech companies to take responsibility for the content they spread and the algorithms they use… We must fundamentally reform Section 230.”

Trump, meanwhile, has been vocal about perceived biases, tweeting in 2020: “Twitter is doing nothing about all of the lies & propaganda being put out by China or the Radical Left Democrat Party… Section 230 should be revoked by Congress.”

The Stakes of Repealing Section 230

Eliminating Section 230 could fundamentally alter the digital industry. Without immunity, platforms would likely impose stricter content moderation, potentially limiting user-generated content. A precedent can be found in Craigslist’s removal of its “personals” section after a 2018 law introduced liability for platforms facilitating sex work.

Big Tech platforms might become more risk-averse, prioritizing vetted content over the open forums that define today’s internet. Critics warn this could stifle free speech, while proponents see it as a necessary step to curb misinformation and abuse.

Legislative Impasse

Despite bipartisan agreement on the need for reform, legislative progress has been slow. In 2023, Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) admitted the blame was bipartisan: “Republicans are just as much to blame, if not more,” he said.

A potential breakthrough looms with a House Energy and Commerce Committee bill proposing to phase out Section 230 over 18 months. However, that is still uncertain, as disagreements over the scope and implementation of reforms persist.

The Trump-Carr Agenda: An FCC with Teeth

Carr’s ascension to FCC leadership signals an intent to use the agency’s regulatory powers to rein in Big Tech. While Trump distanced himself from Project 2025 during his campaign, Carr’s nomination underscores an alignment with its principles.

As Carr assumes his role, the FCC may become a battleground for one of the most contentious issues in tech regulation. Whether this translates into meaningful reform—or exacerbates political divisions—remains to be seen.

Brendan Carr’s Fight Against Section 230, A Clash with Elon Musk’s Free Speech Vision

Elon Musk’s acquisition of X in 2022 was framed as a crusade for free speech. Musk pledged to transform the platform into a digital town square where all voices—regardless of political or social leanings—could freely engage.

“Free speech is the bedrock of a functioning democracy,” he said.

Under Musk’s leadership, X made sweeping changes that included the following:

• Content Moderation Rollbacks: Musk eliminated policies that restricted hate speech and misinformation, citing his belief in minimal intervention.
• Amnesty for Banned Accounts: Musk reinstated accounts previously banned for violating platform rules, including those belonging to controversial figures like former President Trump.
• Algorithmic Transparency: The platform introduced measures to give users more control over content visibility and engagement.

While these changes were meant to bolster free speech, they came at a significant cost. Major advertisers, including Coca-Cola and General Motors, pulled their campaigns, citing concerns over brand safety. Additionally, X faced a mass exodus of users who criticized the platform’s tolerance for hate speech and disinformation.

Musk’s Role in Trump’s Campaign

However, Musk’s X became a vital tool for Trump’s political ambitions. During the 2024 election campaign, Trump leveraged the platform to rally supporters, promote his policies, and counter criticism. Musk himself endorsed Trump’s re-election bid, emphasizing his belief in Trump’s leadership and the need for “bold decisions” to steer America forward.

X’s alignment with Trump’s campaign made it a critical component of his communication strategy, with Musk positioning the platform as a counterweight to mainstream media.

A Potential Rift?

Many believe that Carr’s push to reinterpret Section 230 could undermine Musk’s vision for a free speech-centric X. Without the legal protections of Section 230, X would face heightened liability for user-generated content, potentially forcing Musk to reinstate stricter moderation policies. This would directly conflict with Musk’s libertarian ethos and the changes he has implemented.

Given Musk’s significant contribution to Trump’s re-election efforts, there is growing skepticism about whether Trump will allow Carr to pursue his aggressive stance on Section 230. Many argue that Trump’s own reliance on Musk’s platform highlights the inherent contradiction in Carr’s agenda.