This chapter covers phones, radio and the internet. Its main idea is about a law from 1996. That law stops websites being sued for what users post. The book wants it read more narrowly. It also wants big tech to help pay for rural internet.
The document says “should”Who acts: FCCHow: regulationp. 847 in the PDF
What the document says
“Eliminate immunities that courts added to Section 230. The FCC should issue an order that interprets Section 230 in a way that eliminates the expansive, non-textual immunities that courts have read into the statute.”
Section 230 shields online platforms from liability for content posted by users. The chapter says the reforms should track a July 2020 rulemaking petition filed near the end of the Trump Administration, and that the agency can clarify that the protection applies only when a platform does not remove information provided by someone else. It also asks the agency to work with Congress on more fundamental reform so that internet companies no longer have what it calls carte blanche to censor protected speech while keeping their protections, including applying antidiscrimination provisions to hosting and denial-of-service protection companies.
What the document actually says
“Eliminate immunities that courts added to Section 230. The FCC should issue an order that interprets Section 230 in a way that eliminates the expansive, non-textual immunities that courts have read into the statute.”
That sentence, in plain words
Courts have read this law broadly. The agency should issue an order cutting that back.
What this is about
A 1996 law protects websites from being sued over what users post. Courts have read it widely. The book says the agency should narrow it.
What is disputed
What this means is contested
The chapter records its own internal disagreement here. It states that the views expressed are not shared uniformly by all conservatives, and that some, including contributors to this chapter, do not think the agency or Congress should regulate the content-moderation decisions of private platforms, on the grounds that doing so would intrude unlawfully on the First Amendment rights of corporations to exclude content from their private platforms.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. Nothing indexed comes close. No candidate mentions section 230 or platform liability, and none is an action of the Federal Communications Commission. The candidates returned here concern an international organization designation, environmental review exclusions, Medicaid, immigration court fees and labor arbitration panels. That is a record of a search, not a finding that nothing has happened: an act this site does not hold, or one that answers the proposal in words unlike its own, would not be caught by it.
The document says “should”Who acts: FCCHow: regulationp. 849 in the PDF
What the document says
“Big Tech should be required to offer a transparent appeals process that allows for the challenging of pretextual takedowns”
The chapter proposes a transparency framework modeled on the disclosures broadband providers must make about how they shape internet traffic, requiring platforms to give greater specificity in their terms of service and holding them accountable by prohibiting actions inconsistent with those terms. It names Section 230 and the Consolidated Reporting Act as potential sources of authority.
What the document actually says
“Big Tech should be required to offer a transparent appeals process that allows for the challenging of pretextual takedowns”
That sentence, in plain words
Large platforms should offer a clear way to appeal. Users could challenge unfair takedowns.
What this is about
A platform can remove a post without saying why. The book says users should be able to appeal. The rules would have to be clear.
Public Law 119-12, approved May 19, 2025, does impose a disclosed process on covered platforms: within one year each must build a way for a person to report a nonconsensual intimate visual depiction and request its removal, must carry a clear and conspicuous notice of that process in plain language explaining its responsibilities and how to submit a request, and must act within 48 hours, with the Federal Trade Commission enforcing failures as an unfair or deceptive practice. It runs the opposite way from what the proposal asks. The process is for requesting a takedown, not for appealing one; the poster whose material is removed gets no appeal; the law shields a platform from liability for a good faith removal that later proves unfounded; and it requires nothing about the specificity of a platform's terms of service or accountability for departing from them.
In plain English
The law makes big sites set up a clear way to ask that an image be taken down. They must act within two days. But the chapter wanted a way to appeal a takedown. Here the person whose post is pulled gets no appeal at all.
The document says “should”Who acts: FCC, CongressHow: legislationp. 849 in the PDF
What the document says
“One idea is to empower consumers to choose their own content filters and fact checkers, if any.”
The chapter notes that Section 230 itself codifies user control as an express policy goal and encourages platforms to provide tools empowering users to do their own content moderation. It also asks the agency to work with Congress on stronger protections against young children accessing social media despite age restrictions.
What the document actually says
“One idea is to empower consumers to choose their own content filters and fact checkers, if any.”
That sentence, in plain words
One idea is to let users pick their own filters. They could pick their own fact checkers too.
What this is about
Platforms decide what to hide or label. The book says users could choose instead. They would pick their own filters.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. Nothing indexed comes close. No candidate concerns content filtering, user selected moderation tools or children's access to social media. The candidates returned here cover Agriculture Department delegations, a child soldiers determination, disparate impact liability, renewable fuel volumes and made in America advertising claims. That is a record of a search, not a finding that nothing has happened: an act this site does not hold, or one that answers the proposal in words unlike its own, would not be caught by it.
The document says “should”Who acts: CongressHow: legislationp. 850 in the PDF
What the document says
“To put the FCC’s universal service program on a stable footing, Congress should require Big Tech companies to start contributing an appropriate amount.”
The universal service fund subsidizes telephone and broadband service in high-cost and low-income areas and is currently funded by charges on telecommunications carriers. The chapter calls the present approach the regulatory equivalent of taxing horseshoes to pay for highways.
What the document actually says
“To put the FCC’s universal service program on a stable footing, Congress should require Big Tech companies to start contributing an appropriate amount.”
That sentence, in plain words
Big tech firms should help pay for this program. Congress should require it.
What this is about
A fund helps pay for phone and internet in rural areas. Phone companies pay into it. The book says big tech firms should pay too.
What is disputed
What this means is contested
The chapter records its own internal disagreement here. It states that conservatives are not unanimous in agreeing the contribution base should be expanded, and that some argue Congress should instead revisit the program's entire funding structure and decide whether to keep subsidizing service at all, with future funding decided through the normal appropriations process.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. Public Law 119-89 is the only candidate about the universal service fund. It directs the Federal Communications Commission to open a rulemaking within 180 days establishing a vetting process for applicants for high cost universal service funding, requiring an applicant to show the technical, financial and operational capability to build what it promises. That governs who may receive money from the fund. The proposal is about who pays into it, and the law leaves the contribution base on telecommunications carriers unchanged. That is a record of a search, not a finding that nothing has happened: an act this site does not hold, or one that answers the proposal in words unlike its own, would not be caught by it.
Brendan Carr, “Federal Communications Commission,” in Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, edited by Paul Dans and Steven Groves (The Heritage Foundation, 2023), pp. 845-860. https://static.heritage.org/project2025/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf
This page
“Federal Communications Commission,” Project 2025, chapter 28. Read the Mandate, https://readthemandate.org/project-2025/chapter-28/ (retrieved October 7, 2026).
Cite the document when the claim is about what the document says. Cite this page when the indexing, the wording or the record of what has happened is what is being relied on.
What This Page Covers, and What It Leaves Out
The chapter's proposals on Section 230, transparency obligations for large platforms, universal service funding and network security.
The chapter's treatment of spectrum policy, infrastructure siting rules and the agency's internal process.
This chapter states twice that conservatives are not unanimous on its main proposals, and sets out the opposing view each time. Those passages are recorded on the proposals they concern.
