Could you quote the part you're referring to? I searched for "censor" in the document, and it doesn't come up. Then I read through the document, and I don't see anything trying to explain possible reasons.
There seems to be no connection between "the feds punishing Musk for not participating in their well documented censorship operations" and this document.
Sorry, linked to the wrong one. This is the one[1] (and twitter thread[2]) that calls that out more specifically. And the one I linked first starts by saying it agrees completely with Carr's dissent.
Thank you for providing the correct link. I just read through it, and I guess you could stretch the first paragraph very, very far to make it compatible with "the feds punishing Musk for not participating in their well documented censorship operations", but unless Mr. Carr has brought something like this up more explicitly, it seems like you're trying to read something into it that he didn't write. There are many ways to interpret his initial paragraph without asserting some "well documented censorship operations" (which I do not believe exist).
Why do you think it needs to be stretched very, very far? I don't think it needs to be stretched at all. The first sentence is literally:
> Last year, after Elon Musk acquired Twitter and used it to voice his own political and ideological views without a filter, President Biden gave federal agencies a greenlight to go after him.
The Biden admin (and by extension the FCC) is "the feds", and "voicing views without a filter" is a paraphrasing of "refusing to censor", and the Biden admin wanting to censor things from social media is, in fact, well-documented[1].
> Why do you think it needs to be stretched very, very far? I don't think it needs to be stretched at all.
The initial sentence "the feds punishing Musk for not participating in their well documented censorship operations" states that Musk isn't participating in censoring other people. The sentence you quoted states that Musk "voices his own political and ideological views without a filter", which doesn't have anything to do with Musk censoring other people.
While both talk about censorship, one talks about "the feds censoring people", and the other talks about "Musk censoring himself". These are completely different things.
It does not state that. Censoring yourself does count as censoring, and is therefore included in the concept of "censoring operations". You're putting words in the commissioner's mouth when you tack "people" on to it.
That being said, Musk is also refusing to censor other people on Twitter, so your point is moot regardless.
If I try to follow your understanding, it would mean that "the feds punishing Musk for not participating in their well documented censorship operations" is about Musk openly sharing his views, not about censoring other people on Twitter. Can you share the documentation about censorship operations targeting Elon Musk?
I cannot. At this point, you are clearly not approaching this discussion in good faith or you struggle with basic reading comprehension. Either way I am unable to help you further.
It's good for you to provide the link. The problem is that people will follow the link and read it.
It says, paraphrasing, "The commission's reasoning is attractive, but doesn't hold water. Why are we requiring Space X to meet its 2025 deadline three years earlier. The arguments are thin, and I'm appalled by the situation."
Nowhere does the opinion mention, allude to, imply, or call out whatever you think it does.
Yep, as other comments have pointed out, I accidentally linked the wrong one (105A3 instead of 105A2). This one starts with "I wholeheartedly agree with the entirety of Commissioner Carr’s dissent". Carr's dissent goes into more detail that he thinks this is the Biden administration going after Musk for not playing ball.
I don't know much about commissioner Carr other than that he was appointed by Trump, so perhaps it is unsurprising he would disagree. I don't know enough about the facts underlying the competing narratives to say confidently whether or not there is foul play here, and suspect it will ultimately be for a court to decide.
Also, one of the other commissioners that form the majority opinion/decision (Geoffrey Starks) was also appointed by Trump, so I don't think that's a very valid point to make here.
