Publisher or Platform? It’s time to end Big Tech censorship

One of the unique ideals of our country is that we’re able to express views and beliefs without fear of reprisal or censorship. And the internet has brought forth a plethora of opportunities to distribute information through a multitude of platforms and websites. But with the acceptance of differing voices came also the silencing of dissenting opinions by those with a monopoly on power and information...namely Facebook, Google and Twitter. These tech giants have created amazing platforms for people to connect, yet now have the undaunting task of policing those platforms in the scope of free speech without sacrificing what their ad dollars crave - your attention and engagement.

While the Constitution of the United States grants freedoms specific to speech and to the press, other countries still clamp down the flow of information through tyrannical laws and regulations. China will not even allow certain sites or information to be posted, and many other nations do the same and offer stiff penalties for citizens involved in merely dispersing topics that the government or companies find taboo or damaging. Do we wish to see the United States become such a place? It seems to be happening on a large scale, right before our eyes. 

Recently, a local volunteer fire department official had his post flagged on Facebook for doing a gun raffle, where funds would be used to purchase life-saving equipment. While perfectly legal in North Carolina and the United States, Facebook’s politically-correct police paused his account for 24 hours. The power of our social media giants comes with enormous responsibility, but stupidity shouldn’t rule the day. 

This unpredictable approach to self-policing free speech does force a discussion as to whether or not the United States government should create a set of rules to help guide these private entities’ self-policing efforts. It’s one thing for an individual user to “mute” or “block” something they don’t like, it’s another for the actual platform to forbid something their political-correct police don’t like either.

In another example of overreaching by the social media platforms, NY Post, America’s fourth-largest newspaper, could not post its own story about Hunter Biden’s email scandal on Twitter or Facebook because it apparently was not fact-checked by their own platform’s fact-checking, politically-correct police. Twitter even went as far as locking President Trump’s Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany’s account. How absurd.

Yes, it reflected negatively on the Bidens, a political family, but that doesn’t make the story more true or more false. The very ideals of our republic demand that the people be allowed to know facts, and judge for ourselves whether to dig deeper, give credence to, or completely dismiss a story. Many defenders of such fact-checking policies will scream that these companies like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Google are private companies, and therefore have the right to do whatever they wish, without harming your First Amendment rights relating to the government. 

However, there are several problems with this claim. First, if you are not paying for these products, then you can be assured that you are the product. For reference, watch the Netflix Documentary “The Social Dilemma”. 

These social media companies rely on your engagement and track your data, then create psychological hooks to keep you on their platforms and them in business. Every click, “mute post”, Like, etc. reinforces to their algorithms what you’ll do next and which ad to place in your timeline. You ARE the product. Like it or not. These companies also enjoy huge tax breaks and benefits, while doing a pathetic job of safeguarding your identity, data, and intellectual property. 

Secondly, these giant companies need to answer the question of whether they want to be held accountable as a publisher or a platform. Are they private publishers, like the NY Post? Or are they utility platforms like the phone company, internet service providers, etc.? They cannot be both, even though they try to dance between the two selections whenever it comes to taxes, political views, accountability, crimes, propaganda, court cases, and monopoly concerns. 

Thirdly, there needs to be a set of parameters that is abided by, where there is no partisan favoritism and blatant double standards. Our citizenry deserves an equal playing field to determine what is real news, fake news, gossip or humor. 

One possible solution would work similarly to Facebook’s new political advertising barriers. To promote our upcoming Neuse News Election Night Results Show, they took my entity’s name, personal information like my North Carolina Driver’s License, email, and phone number. Then Facebook emailed and called to verify the information. Similarly, we could create an approved database for publishers that would weed out most fake news and foreign interferences, which would allow a wide variety of trusted publications to continue their work, without bias and attacks. 

I know of one company that is creating thousands of websites masquerading as local news, whereby all of their content is paid for by special interest groups. They approached me to consider partnering with them in North Carolina. The appeal of profit was tempting, but I run my businesses with the idea that I must be able to sleep well with a clear conscience. There is a place for paid content, but not disclosing it is unethical in my opinion. Currently, Facebook and Twitter are run amuck with these types of sites.

I personally love social media and the possibilities it provides for networking and more, but these social media platforms should not have such a stranglehold on politics and viewpoints of the very citizens and users that make them rich. We often hear about the evil rich corporations that are supported by Republicans, but the left has quite a monopoly itself on the technology world. Amazon, Facebook, Google, YouTube, Instagram, Apple, and many others are controlled by unabashed leftists, whose bias is plain to see, no matter your political views. For the latest example, see what Expensify just sent to over 10,000,000 customers. 

I realize this is a bit of a catch-22 for these companies, where good and bad things can happen from the users on their platforms, and then the companies are held accountable for both the good and bad results. However, our government needs to establish infrastructure guidelines and consistent rules to ensure our free speech rights are allowed. Some may call this government overreach, I call it common sense.