- Apple and Google Control 99+% of the US Smart Phone Market - January 12, 2021
- The New Cronyism: Big Tech Censors Conservatives – Democrats Deliver Crony Policies - January 11, 2021
- Guessing SCOTUS: Do Rulings Depend on What Roberts Has for Breakfast Each Day? - December 16, 2020
Friday delivered us an amazing headline containing an amazing quote.
Who is said Tech Billionaire? Naval Ravikant:
“Naval Ravikant is the CEO and a co-founder of AngelList. He previously co-founded Epinions (which went public as part of Shopping.com) and Vast.com. He is an active Angel investor, and have invested in dozens of companies, including Twitter, Uber, Yammer, Stack Overflow and Wanelo.”
“‘One great tweet I saw was, “The Left won the culture wars. Now they’re just driving around shooting survivors.” This is unfortunate for conservatives, but technology is a force that also pushes left.’”
Well all of that is certainly pleasant. Well…it’s certainly obvious.
Here are some headlines just from the last time we addressed Big Techs censorship just a couple of weeks ago. It’s getting more and more blatantly obnoxious.
Live Action is a reasonable and unoffensive pro-life group. So to fabricate a reason to ban them Pinterest had to absurdly classify them in a ban-able category. Born was the absurd “Pornography” designation which “allowed” Pinterest to ban Live Action. Except conservative journalistic joint Project Veritas got hold of the story and started reporting it. So Pinterest’s Big Tech cohorts kicked in with their censorship.
Oh – and…
Because of course. This wasn’t the only Big Tech censorship tag team of the last week. Pinterest appears to really dislike Christians, so…
…Pinterest again mis-classified Christian/conservative content. So they’re teeing up a way to ban it. Again Project Veritas reported on it. Again Big Tech’s tag team censors kicked into high gear.
Then there’s black conservative Candace Owens. Who forcefully but very respectfully speaks a lot of sense.
So of course…
“Facebook claims temporary block was a ‘mistake,’ but adds conservative activist to list of possible ‘hate agents.’”
Oh look – yet another ridiculous Big Tech misclassification. Owens is a reserved and dutiful woman. She is absolutely not a “hate agent.” But that’s Facebook’s misclassification – to tee her up for re-banning.
Big Tech’s classification should be renamed “Agents We Hate.” Oh and while they’re at it, Big Tech is lending a helping hand to its Leftist fellow travelers.
Something they’ve also been doing for years.
Many months ago, we first addressed the legal protections Congress granted Big Tech – which they are abusing beyond words as they continue their digital drive-bys on conservatives.
“‘Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act immunizes online platforms for their users’ defamatory, fraudulent, or otherwise unlawful content. Congress granted this extraordinary benefit to facilitate ‘forum[s] for a true diversity of political discourse.’
“‘This exemption from standard libel law is extremely valuable to the companies that enjoy its protection, such as Google, Facebook, and Twitter, but they only got it because it was assumed that they would operate as impartial, open channels of communication—not curators of acceptable opinion.’…
“To protect the Web as the wide-open and unobstructed ‘platform’ we all said we wanted it to be – the CDA immunized online companies from liability for things posted on its ‘platforms.’…
“From a free-and-open-Internet perspective – this makes a lot of sense. Big Tech companies claimed they wanted to offer places where everyone everywhere could speak freely and openly – so they were afforded these special CDA Section 230 protections.”
Except with increasing frequency and obviousness – Big Tech is slamming closed its “wide-open and unobstructed” platforms to conservatives. Thereby violating the letter and the spirit of Section 230. Some Big Tech mouthpieces ridiculously still push the “We’re non-partisan” party line.
Microsoft (Market Cap: $1.02 trillion)
Amazon ($929 billion)
Google ($764 billion)
Facebook ($535 billion)
Twitter ($28 billion)
Pinterest ($15 billion)
…so you know the IA is struggling to get by. And its good they’ve all teamed up – because trillion-dollar-Microsoft couldn’t get a lot done in DC all by itself.
IA’s President and CEO is Michael Beckerman. In defense of his members – and against the rising, bipartisan call for DC examination of Big Tech’s practices and legal protections – he recently, ridiculously penned the following:
“As more lawmakers speak out about Section 230, it’s important to understand that this section of the law enables us all to have a voice online.”
No, it quite obviously does not.
Big Tech mis-classifies conservative and Christian content – and then bans it. Per their warping of Section 230.
Big Tech mis-classifies Live Action as “Pornography” – then bans them…per Section 230.
Big Tech mis-classifies Bible verses as “Sensitive” – so as to then ban them and the groups posting them…per Section 230.
And then Big Tech bans anyone publishing anywhere about Big Tech’s misclassifications and censorship of conservatives…per Section 230.
And Big Tech has been doing this – for years and years.
So when IA President and CEO Beckerman tries this in December…
You want to laugh uproariously – if the urge to get violently ill doesn’t overtake you.
As we know, all governments move S…L…O…W…L…Y. The $4.5-trillion-per-year federal government – more slowly still.
Add in DCs nigh complete lack of technological understanding – and you have some real hesitancy to weigh in on anything Technology.
It is why we are still operating under the woefully and completely outdated 1996 Telecommunications Act.
The meteoric Internet has left DC’s denizens in the dust. And most of them are highly hesitant to revisit legislation because they are wholly unsure how to write it. But Section 230 is a small and targeted portion of huge Tech law. And Big Tech is obscenely abusing it. So DC interest in examining it is finally, slowly rising.
God bless America.
[Originally Published at RedState]