Thoughts on Big Tech Censorship

The center-left populist Mexican President, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, recently criticized the heavy-handedness of the US social media companies for banning former President Donald Trump, comparing the ban “as a sort of Spanish Inquisition on what is expressed”. Other world leaders have followed suit, with the Prime Minister of Poland and the German Chancellor expressing outrage at the censorship of an elected President.

Although censorship by the government is unconstitutional, there are numerous examples in which our government has paid little attention to the restrictions placed on it. Private individuals and groups of private individuals have 1st Amendment protections and the US Supreme Court has given us wide latitude in our expressions. While the act of banning an individual on a social media platform is a relatively new concept, the act of censorship, is as old as erosions in a fishless desert. Not only has the former President been banned from Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter, so have numerous high-profile Conservatives who are simply voicing their opinions on social media.

These social media giants have also been given so-called Section 230 protections by Congress. In actuality, Section 230 consists, in its entirety, of the following 26 words: No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. The point of this legislation, passed in 1996, was to give the fledgling content providers legal protections from being sued. It has resulted in an umbrella of protection for the Googles and the Amazons of the world as well. This has morphed into an unparalleled power grab for Big Tech, who tend not to be very friendly or tolerant to political conservatives. But without Section 230 protections, online retailers like Amazon, and content providers like Google and Facebook, would never be able to allow comments or reviews of their products without fear of legal reprisal.

Ironically, the original author of the bill, Democratic Senator Ron Wyden, and other liberal members of Congress insist there is too little oversight as to what they deem as bad content. In reality, it is simply content with which they disagree. Accuracy of any expressed opinion/content is irrelevant. The stifling of any non-violent freedom of expression is the foundation of tyranny.  This is exactly why conservative Republicans are beginning to push back very hard. In addition to being banned, conservatives are being endlessly fact-checked and harassed, by those organizations whose views and standards are vastly different from their own. This includes the practice of shadow banning, where the banning may not be apparent to the user.

The idea of banning or shutting down people with which we disagree is a very dangerous one—no matter their political persuasion. Neither Donald Trump nor Joe Biden should be prevented from expressing themselves on any platform. If this is done to a sitting President with impunity, what could Big Tech do to the rest of us?

As Ronald Reagan so eloquently stated, “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.”

HHJ News