Our deep dive (73pp) into the FCC forcing ABC to apply to renew its broadcast licenses, the most egregious abuse of power in the 92-year history of the FCC. This is Carr at his most shameless, ruthless, and dangerous. techfreedom.org/fcc-cant-use...

Happy birdthday to me! 🎂🐦🐿️

Mover over, America 250. I'm ready for Burgundy 550: the anniversary of Benelux constitutional government. Sadly: "There are currently no major public events, festivals, or exhibitions scheduled to celebrate the anniversary of the Great Privilege issued by Mary of Burgundy on February 11, 1477."

Klobuchar: "Lindsey was loyal to his friends" Except maybe John McCain, his supposed bff?

Why is replacing Planter hard? Literally the governor of Maine is ready to go. Janet Mills. This is a no brainer.

lol they voted Leave to get rid of the Poles and wound up with way more non-white immigrants. And now they'll vote for Farage... 🤦‍♂️

Don't forget that FTC Chair Ferguson promised Trump he would crack down on speech about gender-affirming care if selected as Chair punchbowl.news/wp-content/u...

The complaint's other arguments boil down to claims that WPATH members profit from providing GAC. That simply doesn't mean WPATH is engaged in "commerce" that the FTC can police.

The FTC complaint is clearly claiming jurisdiction over WPATH because of its speech, the things it said to try to get GAC covered by insurers. This is nothing like a *trade association* selling insurance to its members through for-profit subsidiaries.

WPATH is an educational organization. It does NOT do what CDA did through for-profit subsidiaries: provide insurance to its members. Instead, it merely advocated for insurers to cover gender-affirming care. That's advocacy: SPEECH, not commerce

FTC relies (left image) on a 1999 Supreme Court decision (right image), but omits the key details about that case. The California Dental Association was a 501(c)(6) trade association run by dentists which provided insurance to its members through for-profit subsidiaries...

FTC's suit against WPATH will be dismissed before a court even reaches the obvious First Amendment Qs because the FTC Act applies only to "commerce" and thus applies to non-profits only when they engage in "commerce," which WPATH does not. 🧵

Paramount to state AGs: you can't stop us from buying Warner Brothers because you think it would reduce viewpoint diversity ✅ Elsewhere... Trump DOJ & FTC: reduction in viewpoint diversity is an antitrust harm ❌ Obviously, the First Amendment trumps antitrust law. techfreedom.org/wp-content/u...

six years later, libertarian man still seething that kids couldn't congregate *inside* 🏫 while BLM protestors congregated *outside* 🌬️ (COVID had already killed 102,441 Americans and 982 more died on that day)

Fox isn't sending us their best and brightest

Benny Johnson: fire Jimmy Kimmel for his "expectant widow" joke and cancel ABC's broadcast licenses White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt just before the WHCD: "there will be some shots fired tonight" Will she be fired, too?

Also, of all the words for neo-cons not to understand... 🤦‍♂️ I mean, this is literally their hamartia (fatal flaw), eg Iraq War II

I like Mona but yiiiiiiiikes Here's what she's referring to www.nytimes.com/2025/10/02/o...

There's always a "Fiddler on the Roof" line 🎶

The tactics FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson decried as jawboning in Murthy (weaponized investigations) are, of course, precisely the same tactics he's used against Newsguard, Media Matters, and gender-affirming care providers over speech he doesn't like (ad boycotts or trans care). It's always projection

noooooooooooooo

was law review typography really so terrible in 1995?

Expect all three entities to point to this decision to argue that the FTC's investigations of them have no legal basis in the FTC Act and are, instead, merely tools of harassment against speech the FTC doesn't like. Yet the costs have been ruinous: 30% of Newsguard's revenue:

Alternatively, a valid antitrust suit might show that the advertisers had attempted to block X's access to *other* advertisers. But that didn't happen here either.

To win a case, the FTC could show that some the boycott was, in fact, directed by one of X's rivals. But X couldn't show that because GARM excluded its social media company members from making such decisions.

In theory, the FTC might be have wider latitude bringing an unfair methods of competition suit under the FTC Act, but it would still have to show a reduction in competition, which X utterly failed to do. Read pages 49-56 of the order storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

meet Tante Mieux, my sassy drag personality. She puns in both English and French, dispenses helpful life advice (Paris, darrrling!), and generally channels Auntie Mame

Section 230 doesn't protect you if you're responsible for the development of content generated by someone else even "in part." The usual example is editing "John is not a murderer" to read "John is a murderer." I found a better example:

🤐

MAGA: end Section 230! stop the censorship! No subsidies for Big tech! The White House today: we need 230 for AI 🤦‍♂️