David McCabe

The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission has waded into the politicized debate over NPR and PBS, ordering up an investigation that he said could be relevant in lawmakers’ decision about whether to continue funding the public news organizations.

President Trump’s blunt message after a whirlwind week of executive orders and presidential proclamations may boil down to this: Take me at my word. During four years in political exile after his first term, President Trump vowed to radically reshape American life, culture and politics if he got another chance.

The Justice Department and a group of states asked a federal court to force Google to sell Chrome, its popular web browser, a move that could fundamentally alter the $2 trillion company’s business and reshape competition on the internet. The request follows a landmark ruling in August by Judge Amit P. Mehta of the U.S.

Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted Meta’s request to dismiss a lawsuit brought by Ethan Zuckerman, who teaches public policy at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, who wants to build a tool that allows Facebook users to unfollow everyone in their feed.

Facebook, X, YouTube and other social media platforms rely on a 1996 law to insulate themselves from legal liability for user posts. The protection from this law, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, is so significant that it has allowed tech companies to flourish. But what if the same law could be used to rein in the power of those social media giants? That idea is at the heart of a lawsuit filed in May against Meta, the owner of Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp.

A bid to break up Alphabet Inc.’s Google is one of the options being considered by the Justice Department after a landmark court ruling found that the company monopolized the online search market. The move would be Washington’s first push to dismantle a company for illegal monopolization since unsuccessful efforts to break up 

Google acted illegally to maintain a monopoly in online search, Judge Amit Mehta of U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled, a landmark decision that strikes at the power of tech giants in the modern internet era and that may fundamentally alter the way they do business. Judge Mehta said that Google had abused a monopoly over the search business.

How should we balance freedom of speech with the flood of slanderous statements, extremist manifestoes and conspiracy theories that proliferate on the internet? The United States decided decades ago to let private companies solve that quandary themselves. The Supreme Court made this position official in three major rulings in the 1990s and early 2000s. But lawmakers aren’t sure about this arrangement, now that giant online platforms are the new town square. A series of federal court cases will address these questions. Courts have faced six broad questions about online speech:

A bill that would force a sale of TikTok by its Chinese owner, ByteDance—or ban it outright—was passed by the Senate on April 23 and signed into law April 24 by President Joe Biden. Now the process is likely to get even more complicated. Congress passed the measure citing national security concerns because of TikTok’s Chinese ties. Both lawmakers and security experts have said there are risks that the Chinese government could lean on ByteDance for access to sensitive data belonging to its 170 million U.S. users or to spread propaganda.