Why Big Tech Should Not Be Viewed as a Private Business

American Thinker ^ | 07/08/2019 | David Solway

[SeekAndFind]

Should First Amendment rights be extended to Big Tech corporations to publish and censor as they please?  This is a question that has agitated the discussion on whether antitrust legislation should be applied to infogiants such as Google, YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, Amazon, Pinterest and many others that have cornered the market on a public resource, information, and an essential human activity, the consumption of information. A solution to the problem of data sequestration and restricted access practiced by these companies is to rebadge them either as publishers or, alternatively, as public utilities.

These entities are protected by Section 230 of Title 47 of the United States Code, which allows them to “restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene…or otherwise objectionable” (italics mine). This provision has become, in effect, a license to censor expressions of opinion that run counter to the convictions and political views these companies promote. The First Amendment argument absolving Big Tech from complicity in monopolizing political discourse is succinctly summed up by a commenter to an article I recently posted in which I advocated antitrust legislation with respect to social media. He writes, in part:

“A private company…is exercising its First Amendment rights to do whatever the hell it wants short of libel and slander and incitement to violence…No private company has the obligation to carry content which it opposes ideologically. No private company has the legal obligation to be content-neutral… [T]hat would be a blatant violation of its free speech rights. The government can neither suppress nor compel speech nor demand ideological neutrality from private entities...Changing the rules to subvert the Constitution by defining companies you don’t like as “utilties” or “publishers”

[SeekAndFind]

Wishing to establish fairness in information exchange — the lifeblood of a democratic nation — is the very opposite of fascism. The fact is that suppressing users on political grounds is itself a fascist — or, more accurately, Marxist — strategy that is now the name of the game. Google executive Jen Gennai makes it clear that Google is bent on sidelining supporters of Donald Trump, a practice nothing short of electoral tampering.

The great purge against conservatives and free speech advocates is proceeding via tactics like demonetization, shadow banning, the rigging of algorithms, the employment of waffle terms in enforcing company policy (e.g., “community standards”) and outright segregation.

[ClearCase_guy]

They blame Russia, but we know who meddles in the elections. We have met the enemy and he is us.

[taxcontrol]

I am of the opinion that there are really 3 categories of businesses:

Private Businesses (LLP, proprietorship, sole owner, S corp)
Public Businesses (C corp, publicly traded, or does business in more than one state)
Utilities (provides a service to the public at the behest of the government)

Private business should be free to serve whoever they want. IOW, discriminate on customers freely. Public businesses should not be permitted to discriminate customers on non material criteria. For example, a business should be allowed to discriminate based on income and ability to pay as those concerns are material, but not one the customer’s hair color, number of children, etc.

Lastly, a utility should not be allowed to discriminate and provide service equally.

[bigbob]

You can have a country that maximizes freedom or you can have a nation where the government decides how much freedom exists through the laws and legal decisions that guid the administrative state.

Solway knows full well that the decision has been made long ago that freedom will be limited and defined by the government. Arguing that this is wrong is fine but reversing course will take more than a few op-eds. As proof, get a stopwatch and see how long it take for a federal judge to enjoin any action Trump may decide to take with regard to 230 protections...

Real change is going to require new laws, and a Congress that has the will and guts to pass them, and it’s going to take a lot longer and cost a lot more than anyone knows to fight through the battle that will be required to make them stick.

[DiogenesLamp]

Ping to Semimojo.

[Redwood71]

You forgot crime. Believe me, in the US it is a business and has been since our creation. It might fall under private businesses, but it lacks the legalities of business in the US to include licensing and tax intrusion. Might consider adding it as it is huge in its parameters and financial existence, endurance, survivability. Can’t ignore success.....unfortunately.

rwood

[Alberta's Child]

... that have cornered the market on a public resource, information, and an essential human activity, the consumption of information.

Anyone who considers "information" to be a public resource has no business writing articles on this subject. If "information" is a public resources, then most applications of copyright law would be null and void.

[Amendment10]

Are these big tech publishing companies receiving federal funding?

[DannyTN]

Where to draw the line?

We don't want FreeRepublic to have to allow everyone to publish here. That would largely ruin the site.

However, Google, Facebook, Youtube and the like have reached near monopoly status. And their censorship is a real concern. So what makes them different.

For one, FreeRepublic is very specific about who it's for. While these other companies do nothing obvious to dispel the illusion that they are for everybody. And they are not open about their Censorship process. They hide behind terms like "Hate Speech" without any definitions of what constitute that.

1. How do we determine that a social media company has reached monopoly status?
2. How do we protect FreeRepublic, and for that matter DU, from public forum regulations that might get imposed on the monopolies?
3. Are there disclosures that should be required by all companies regarding censorship rules, activities, and appeals?

[MrEdd]

And under zero circumstances are businesses which rely upon the use of easements or limited public resources like the airwaves private.

[Nuke From Orbit]

“... that have cornered the market on a public resource, information, and an essential human activity, the consumption of information.
Anyone who considers “information” to be a public resource has no business writing articles on this subject. If “information” is a public resources, then most applications of copyright law would be null and void.”

I think this is the goal. With the idea or adoption of terms like essential human activity it should set off warning alarms. This is a the nail in the coffin for free speech. The powers that control these mediums can dictate the narrative and the content. The current media companies are hiding behind semantics and until they get sued for violating their own public use guidelines and or user agreements it will continue. The idea that congress can fix this is also a bit scary. The old “I’m here from the government and we are here to help” saying keeps popping into my head. Congress will absolutely screw this up. Not to mention the FCC.

[BigEdLB]

Look at it this way Big Tech is a public utility. The power grid is like the internet. SCE, DWP,PG&E is like Google, Facebook, and Twitter.

[unlearner]

Add to the “public” criterion any multi-national business even if it is private equity.

Some companies need to be more heavily regulated.