Regulate Big Tech the Right Way – Unleash the Lawyers

Why do you think Facebook is so excited about Section 230 reform and government regulation of Big Tech – did it suddenly start caring about free speech and the rights of citizens and unicorn liberation? No. We can’t throw these aspiring dictators into the briar patch that is government-run regulation. As Admiral Ackbar, and anyone who is even vaguely conscious sees, it’s a trap.

There’s a better way, a way that will actually bring these creepy nanny statists to heel.

It’s not traditional regulation – the creation of some sort of Department of Social Media serves the interests of both Big Tech and the Democrats, and it will make the internet substantially less free. That’s not a bug – that’s the feature.

Big Tech loves the idea of some new government agency regulating the interwebs because it has the bottomless wallet to buy the people doing the regulating. Where will people running the regulation come from? Big Tech. Where will they go after they work in the Department of Social Media for a while? Back to Big Tech. See how that works?

I’m still waiting. And I’ll be waiting until I’m Biden years old, because it always happens, every single time.

The phenomenon of industries taking over the agencies that supposedly oversee them even has a name within political science, which I somehow managed to recall from college from the din of the Replacements and the haze of Coors. It’s “regulatory capture,” and Big Tech is positively slobbering at the idea of taking charge of the chunk of government that is supposed to take charge of it.

The Democrats love it this idea – imagine, a bunch of left-leaning bureaucrats (as if there is any other kind) getting the final say of what you can say on the web. The mere notion of the opportunity to control all discourse online is provoking an 8.3 earthquake of liberal toobining in DC.

Unwoke Republican: Wait Kurt, are you saying that the Democrats would try to suppress the free speech of conservatives and other dissenters through the use of the federal government’s power?

It will be sold as an attempt to rein in the industry. It will be, in reality, the culmination of the leftist dream of total control over all discourse in the United States.

Republicans, for once in your lives, don’t be stupid. Don’t walk into the free speech kill zone, dummies.

But we do need to regulate Big Tech. We need to control the fascist tendencies of the gender studies grads who make up its Bay Area workforce. We need to ensure Big Tech is terrified of suppressing conservative discourse instead of being eager to do it. We need to treat the industry with a whip and a chair.

What? Aren’t conservatives supposed to hate lawyers? Well, speaking from experience, no one loves a lawyer more than a conservative who just used one to take unholy vengeance upon his enemies. Which is what we must do.

Now, you know the Americans with Disabilities Act, the ADA? All the handicapped access issues today are dealt with not by some government agency but by lawyers suing for clients denied their rights. Is it an obnoxious statute that is frequently misused? Yeah. But I can live with an obnoxious statute deployed against Big Tech. To the extent it is misused, well, here’s a concerto from the universe’s most micro violin.

Like the ADA, the Big Tech Control Act would set out a series of rights every citizen has in their social media presence against the large social media companies – the right to speak within the nearly limitless bounds of the First Amendment, the right to fair terms of service, the right to due process before any action is taken to limit their use of the platform, the right to control their data (and to have it protected), the right to full transparency of algorithms that control how an individual’s social media reach is controlled, and other rights that ensure every citizen can speak without fear.

Naturally, the statute would include something like the following language, similar to that included in many consumer protection statutes: “The Big Tech Control Act shall be broadly and liberally construed in favor of expanding and protecting the right of every American citizen to freely exercise his or her rights of free expression.” When in doubt, more freedom!

And to enforce the Big Tech Control Act, it would include the right to go into court – with priority, so cases do not languish – to enjoin violations of these rights, to recover actual damages (the Act would recognize that social media presence has real monetary value), to win civil penalties or punitive damages, and to collect attorney’s fees. In consumer cases, fees of $650/hour are not uncommon. Oh, and like with most consumer laws, the fees only go to a prevailing plaintiff. The Big Tech company never gets to recover its fees even if it wins – we don’t want to dissuade citizens from suing! Also, no anti-SLAPP law or procedure would apply to cases under the Big Tech Control Act.

Now, if the feds won’t do this, states sure can try. I love the idea of a few dozen states making Big Tech’s life hell until it conforms and stops screwing with us. I’ll roll the dice this Supreme Court would buy off on it.

Now, the objection by the unwoke conservatives will be that these are private companies and they have a right to set their own terms of service and this Act violates all our conservative principles.

They have used, and are using, their power against us, and we should not be supine sissies and refuse to use our power back at them. They started it. They tried to shaft us, and this is the price. Learn, corporations. Learn what happens when you cross us.

Again, no. There is no conservative principle worth honoring that makes us less free. I find the notion that we are somehow morally obligated to accept serfdom because the entity exercising mastery over us has articles of incorporation instead of a flag to be baffling.

Unleash the lawyers. Regulate Big Tech by letting the Visigoths of Litigation run rampant, pillaging and looting, until the mere thought of gagging an American citizen fills them with quivering, gut-gnawing terror. And then they won’t dare do it anymore. And then we will be free again.

I have maintained for years that the only way to get Big Tech to become politically neutral is to remove their Section 230 legal protections that allow them to claim to be only a platform. Big Tech has demonstrated for years that they have evolved far beyond that.

Kurt is correct. There is no need for a FedGov oversight agency. The only thing that needs to be done by our Congress-critters is to alter Section 230 and then stand back. The lawsuits that will follow, most winning, some losing, will impose a huge financial drain on FacePlant, twits, etc. A continuing string of multi-million dollar legal losses over a few years will cause their board of directors to make changes. Soon these services will be ideologically invisible as they become truly the platforms they originally started out as.

Obama-Care (obamaumao-care my lexicon) was formulated as a control mechanism... “free”.

One model Schlicter is talking about: the coal mining owners, to avoid black lung and many other injuries which would destroy their margins (remember in WV this is the Rockefellers who own most of the mineral rights under the state)- used their influence in Congress to create the Mine Safety and Health Administration (part of Labor Dept.) to interface with United Mine Workers pension and health plans to... cost shift the cost of health care for active and retired miners. So the major owners would not be putting out their own cash (no- they’d get the US public to pay in from our tax money- redistribution in other words, in combination with LAWS creating the agencies, and the regulation/laws governing the pension/health funds deducted from union miners pay). See how this works.

obamacare was to “lay off” the expense of national health care on... everyone. Cost shifting in massive fashion, and mandating charges out of pocket etc. And now-— BERNIE! the Marxist a@@hole and his agreed a@@buddy JoeBama wants Medicare for ALL. And 3.5 trillion that costs ZERO dollars!! HOw does that work? It doesn’t and can NOT work ever- and is intended to bankrupt the country— for the “revolution”.

A historical example of the transition to this in coal mining from the 1900’s violence/military warfare on miners in WV post WWI (see Blair Mountain— this was the US Army):

In 1946, 400,000 miners struck—as part of the massive post-war strike wave involving 4.6 million workers conducting 5,000 walkouts—which defied DEMOCRAT President Truman’s threat to draft strikers into the military and order them back to work (how about that power grab?) A deal signed between UMWA leader John L. Lewis and US Secretary of the Interior Julius Krug established a royalty system that compelled the operators to pay a fee on every ton of coal the miners extracted. This is how the operators (who have to pay royalties to... well the Rockefellers for every amount of coal they take from their fields) had to pay extra for this.... “deal”.

Chip-chip-chip.

Facebook WANTS the “regulation” and they want to STAFF the agency that will “control” it. The “whistleblower” is PAID by Zuckerberg to “whistle” his tune. A complete DEMOCRAT/Facebook payoff setup— so they BOTH can control the narrative and MEDIA darling pals they already OWN! What kabuki theater.

Take away 230 NOW.

Make social media the same as any “PUBLIC CARRIER” media— and all this abuse and sinister crap goes away. Trump was and IS RIGHT!

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.