A small number of private companies with no democratic accountability control public discourse infrastructure and make opaque algorithmic decisions. Structural remedies — antitrust, interoperability, transparency mandates, data portability — are warranted without requiring content neutrality.
Concentrated control over information flows can distort public discourse and limit competition. Legal measures such as antitrust enforcement or interoperability requirements can reduce excessive influence. This helps preserve a more diverse and competitive information ecosystem.
The power of large tech platforms over debate should be reduced by law where concentrated control distorts public discourse. The legal remedy should be carefully targeted, not blunt.
Concentration of the public square within a few massive profit-driven corporations creates a 'choke point' for information that can distort democratic processes and limit diversity of viewpoints. Implementing anti-trust measures or data-portability laws would encourage competition and prevent a single set of corporate algorithms from dictating the parameters of national conversation. Reducing this centralized power…
Large platforms can shape visibility, speech, news, reputation, and political mobilization at enormous scale. Legal reduction of concentrated gatekeeping power is compatible with free expression through competition policy, transparency, interoperability, data portability, and due process requirements.
The monopoly power of leftist-captured tech platforms is a threat to free speech, democracy, and the ability of Christians and conservatives to communicate. Breaking up these platforms or creating genuine competition is essential. Project 2025 addresses this through restoring competition and ending the government-corporate censorship complex.
Should news organizations disclose their owners, major funders, and any corporate relationships that might influence editorial decisions?
Unanimous AI YES. Transparency about funding and ownership is a basic accountability standard for journalism. Readers need this information to assess credibility and potential conflicts of interest.
FCN YES — because it would expose the left-wing foundations, progressive billionaires, and corporate interests that fund mainstream media organizations the FCN believes are operating as progressive propaganda.
Transparency requirements are one of the clearest cross-ideological convergences in the dataset. Both liberal AI transparency principles and FCN media distrust produce strong YES answers — while imagining very different things would be revealed by the disclosure.
Are there cases where funding source disclosure might harm legitimate investigative journalism (e.g., protecting sources for whistleblower investigations)?