Skip to comments.FLASHBACK: The “Repeal Section 230” Narrative is Being Pushed by Silicon Valley, Don’t Fall For It
Posted on 02/14/2021 12:30:53 PM PST by SmokingJoe
The Big Tech giants want to be regulated.
Yes, you read that right.
Big Tech knows that if online speech is regulated by the federal government, either directly or indirectly via regulation of tech companies, they can and will weaponize it against The People and stifle competition.
Big Tech oligarchs have tried everything to destroy Gab.com and stop our industry-leading free speech software from reaching the masses.
They banned us from both app stores, yet we still continued to grow.
Then they banned us from hosting providers, so we built our own.
Then they banned us from Paypal, Stripe, Coinbase, Square, and more. So we educated our community on free speech money and the great people on Gab started mailing us physical checks to keep the site online.
Then they blacklisted my family from Visa in a Chinese Communist Party social credit score-style form of tyranny.
Despite being banned by 25+ service providers including domain registrars, hosting platforms, app stores, email services, ecommerce services, and more: Gab has survived and continues to thrive.
Gab exists outside of the establishment’s control. They don’t like this, at all. Their monopoly on the free flow of information is coming to an end because Gab is inevitable.
When all else failed, Big Tech and the establishment have set their sights on using Big Government to crush Gab and other alternative technology startups by destroying Section 230 and lobbying for regulation of speech on the internet.
Regulation will solidify Big Tech’s already overpowered and abusive market monopolies.
What folks need to understand is that Section 230 does not protect the speech of Big Tech companies. When Big Tech “fact checks” user content they are acting as a publisher and Section 230 immunity does not apply. As such, they can be held accountable for that speech.
Section 230 doesn’t apply to Big Tech’s editorializing. The First Amendment does. Section 230 only applies to content that users post on their platforms. It provides no protections for Big Tech’s own speech. They can and should be punished for the false information they are giving the public by weaponizing this editorialization of user content
In the case of the Coronavirus, Big Tech has been using the WHO as an “authority” on health related matters instead of official health guidelines from the President of the United States. This is a matter of national security and public health.
The same goes for editorializing election-related content. By “fact checking” one candidate and not another Big Tech is giving an in-kind campaign contribution of enormous and immeasurable monetary value to the Biden campaign. Big Tech should be investigated by the FEC for these in-kind campaign contributions to the Biden campaign. The RNC has filed a report on it, so let’s hope the FEC takes action.
Big Tech had record stock market performance under the Trump administration and how are they repaying him?
By helping the Democrats spread the Russian hoax narrative. By “fact checking” him and not Joe Biden. By censoring links to news stories about Biden.
The President can and should trust bust the Big Tech monopolies, in particular Apple and Google’s duopoly on mobile app distribution along with Facebook and Google’s duopoly on online advertising and search. The only big reason he hasn’t is because Big Tech stocks make up a significant portion of the stock market growth he likes to tout.
If the market needs to take a hit in order to destroy a domestic threat to freedom and the flow of information online then so be it. We do not worship the stock market in America, we worship almighty God. Your 401k gains aren’t worth the future of the Republic, sorry.
My point is: don’t fall for the Section 230 narrative. It’s a distraction. There are plenty of other things that can be done to stop Big Tech tyranny.
The President vastly underestimates how much influence he has online. Antitrust, FEC investigations, and more aside: if the President were to promote free speech technology platforms like Gab, the Big Tech panopticon would collapse on itself and fast.
I just hope the President realizes this before it’s too late.
I fear that his time on Big Tech platforms is quickly running out.
Andrew Torba CEO, Gab.com October 16, 2020 Jesus is King
I’m on Gab, not Twitter. Twitter is losing $1 billion a year, and it’s going to get worse.
Of course they do. Regulation is making the pharmaceutical industry billions. Ditto the hospital industry.
Interesting - I’ll have to think about that.
I am still thinking about it.
Not quite sure what to make of it yet.
We’ve crossed the Orwellian Rubicon.
It’s past time to employ Nullification in a serial fashion.
Since big tech can remove and add my comments however they want, how could any of these comments have valid standing to characterize ANYONE?
You cannot have it both ways but big tech is seeking to have it both ways, to obtain immunity in being characterized in favor of characterizing others with a patch of pretend promotion of genuine content in order for it to pass court muster to persecute posters.
Well, after thinking for a while I am leaning heavily toward agreeing.
After all, this won’t be the first time big corporations favored increased regulation.
It seems ironic at first, but regulations actually favor the huge corporations because they can easily afford to compliance, and compliance avoidance - they have huge compliance departments and teams of lawyers who represent a tiny fraction of their budget.
The cost of compliance itself doesn’t even necessarily manifest - because the compliance departments don’t really exist to facilitate compliance - they exist to facilitate avoiding compliance.
Meanwhile, the smaller competition can’t afford a dedicated compliance (avoidance) department - and must therefore actually comply - adding to costs and often limiting their ability to compete in markets.
As someone already mentioned, it is well known that Big Pharma and Big Energy thrive on and lobby for increased regulatory “hurdles”, because they are really only hurdles for their would-be competitors.
So, after thinking about it, I don’t see why it would be any different for Big Tech Media - I think the Gab CEO is right on the money.
They are probably doing a “Please Br’er Fox, whatever you do, don’t throw me in that there briar patch!” - the briar patch is exactly where they want to be.
“Gab started mailing us physical checks to keep the site online.”
Never mailed a check with my name on it for political purposes. I just go to MOney Mart and get a money order. It’s mostly “Trump PAC c/o N. Pelosi (address of the old hag)” and I’m good..
I’d say he understands the situation pretty clearly.
The repeal of 230 section would be great if done properly. By Donald Trump e.g.
Nowadays, we can expect only the Democratic version of this. And it looks like that would be worse than nothing.
I am with the Gab.
It’s known as regulatory capture. The incumbents plead with the government to regulate their industry to stifle the entry of competitors, although the regulation is ostensibly to “protect the public.” Regulation raises the cost of entry. You need a legal staff that you cannot amortize over a small customer base.
Yes. Me too. Well put.
Roger that. The big insurance companies and Establish medicine wrote Obozo Care. Nothing like having Big Government put a gun to the heads of all citizens and forcing them to buy your product or service. No having to compete in that messy and uncertain marketplace.
Twitter Announces It Lost $1.14 B In 2020
And Trump was one of their big draws.
Gab only exists because Twitter and Facebook have driven people away, using Section 230 as a pretext. Fix Twitter and Facebook, and Gab has no reason to exist. So it’s within Gab’s own selfish motives to see that Facebook and Twitter aren’t fixed. Describing ridding the world of Section 230 as “regulation” is shallow, twisted sophistry.
Section 230 isn’t a controversy because Twitter and Facebook have been hiding behind it to allow all manner of hate-speech and propagation of violence to prosper, but because they have been acting as unofficial (and therefore unaccountable) agents of a corrupt government in its destruction of political discourse.
Network Effect means Gab is forever banished to a niche corner of the market, but a safe one that is plenty large enough for Gan to expand into. It also means that the forces which explain why Twitter and Facebook are so hate-filled against conservative will remain in place so long as they are simultaneously free to censor conservatives, but also free to promote every form of anti-conservative hate that could possibly exist.
I don’t understand, however, why no-one has attempted to strip Facebook and Twitter of Section 230 by arguing that their selective censorships amounts to them having their own voice. Perhaps the best solution is to reassert that Section 230 protections are offered only when the refusal to censor results in an open political discourse.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.