Deplatform the Deplatformers: It's Time to Trust-Bust

Glenn Reynolds has an Encounter Book coming out on this general theme.

He linked this PJ Media article on waking up our somnolent anti-trust division and giving a hard look to the Tech Monopolies.

David Solway makes the point that faced with a near-monolithic media, the only possible vehicle of dissent and change is citizen journalists -- but these are exactly the people the Social Media Monopolies are targeting for deplatforming.

The left is no longer satisfied to have a hegemonic domination of all forms of media -- nothing will suffice for them any longer but exclusive access to mass communications.

And the hard-left-leaning Tech Monopolies -- who are actually even further left than the establishment media, as Jason Whitlock has observed, and are pulling the establishment media further and further left (because Social Media Monopolies control access and promotion to all other media) -- are Willing Executioners.

Time to put an end to this corrupt, domineering, freedom-squelching system of control, forbiddence, censorship, and ultimately exile from basic public services like banking.

The problem, however, can be circumvented by redefining these large social media systems with vast market share as public utilities to which federal regulations could apply. Additionally, telecom companies that make up perhaps over 90 percent of all web traffic clearly operate in tandem to shut down speech based on opinion they deem objectionable. Author Robert Arvay is keenly aware of the danger. "A common feature in medieval fantasy movies is the wizard," he writes, "the character whom no one understands and whose powers everyone needs to fear. In real life, the wizards are CEOs of high technology companies, including well known social media platforms and search engines. Their money has been able to buy legislation that allows them to control the public square, to censor those with whom they disagree." Presumed heretics are thus excommunicated from the debate by the Church of Political Correctness.

Although there may be no documentary proof of insider collusion, the practice and effect of collaborative deplatforming is unmistakable. These companies are all on the same page. This is a form of racketeering, whose social repercussions are glaringly evident. Just ask Laura Loomer, Milo Yiannopoulos, Alex Jones, Paul Joseph Watson, Bosch Fawstin, Faith Goldy, Gavin McInnis, and Tommy Robinson, among others who have been banned or suspended, some intermittently, some permanently. Meanwhile, these same sites are rife with crackpots, conspiracy mongers, anti-Semites, and Muslim jihadists preaching hate and violence.

Antitrust legislation is the way to go. It exists for a purpose: to prevent fraud, racketeering, and anticompetitive control of the marketplace. There are a series of antitrust laws and amendments dating from the 1890 Sherman Act, the most salient of which for present purposes is the Federal Trade Commission Act (or FTC). The general intent according to the FTC guide is "to protect the process of competition for the benefit of consumers" and to ban "unfair methods of competition" and "unfair or deceptive acts or practices." It is crystal clear that the "acts and practices" of the major internet platforms are unfair and deceptive, prohibiting access to those whom they regard as political competitors via command of the technology and thus exercising control over ideas and opinions they regard as "exclusionary," "extremist," "alt-right," "white nationalist" and--the all-purpose term--"hateful."

Most of these terms are simply cowcatchers, meant to sweep perceived interlopers off the ideological tracks. They are shape-shifters, trickster words, empty categories that can be stuffed with random designations....

I'm tired of hearing the Corporate Cucks rule out any kind of anti-trust action. The anti-trust laws remain good laws, laws on the books, and supposedly operatives.

If the Corporate Cucks want the rule that there is no longer such a thing as "monopolies" or "anti-competitve behavior," then they should forthrightly, honestly, and courageously make the case to repeal all anti-monopoly laws, rather than resorting to the cowardly, deceitful subterfuge of leaving these laws on the books but arguing for the government to simply ignore them and refuse to enforce them -- much as Obama did with DACA.

They don't mount an honest, forthright challenge to these laws because, of course, they know that would be unpopular and they'd be defeated and tagged (properly!) as corporate shills. So instead, being cowards and grifters, they simply agitate that these laws should be allowed to remain on the books as paper laws only, but should be pretended to be effectively dead letter.

Well, they're not dead letter. And if the Corporate PR side of "conservativism" wants an end to all anti-trust legislation, then they should act as the "Courageous Warriors" they pretend to be and openly admit this is their goal and seek to change the standing law to the anything-goes monopolies-are-good-and-right Thunderdome that they prefer.

Until then: Fuck right the fuck off with your cowardly shilling for corporate donors.

Now FaceBook is discriminating against conservative fundraising efforts, too. No anti-competitive behavior/leveraging behavior here, nosireebob.

posted by Ace of Spades at 06:32 PM

| Access Comments