[Note: March 8, 2020— I’ve always been a big fan of Infowars, they are a very important source of news. I’ve learned much from them over the years. I don’t always completely agree with what they say though, such as in this example. Also note that I’ve revamped the text of this article to fix a few grammar errors.]
Strangely, the usually libertarian-minded media outlet Infowars.com has launched a petition advocating for the government to take control of social media companies to enforce “ending the practice of shadow banning and algorithm based censorship,” claiming that social media companies are now “deFacto becoming the internet and are forming monopolies.”
However, I don’t think allowing the government to meddle in the content of private internet companies would be a good idea at all. Once the government would be given such authority, they would use it to enforce quotas of political correctness such as by using the guidelines of corrupt organizations like the “Southern Poverty Law Center” which makes phony accusations of racism at the instructions of the political Establishment.
Such legislation would be the same as letting the government mandate the content that book publishers print in books in order to force of content of every book to be accommodating to everyone. The content on the internet is an infinite resource, and calling a social media company a “monopoly” is essentially the same as calling a book a monopoly just because it is popular.
Creating an online social media company is not any sort of an impossible task at all, so there is no reason to treat already existing ones as if they are monopolies.
Such potential legislation reminds me of a lawsuit that was filed in California a few years ago where a private Christian dating website was sued to accommodate dating for homosexuals. Is that the sort of legislation that Infowars is advocating for?
Then what about “Net Neutrality” rules?
However, I do agree with having the government enforce net neutrality rules, because the actual physical broadband infrastructure of the internet is a finite resource where equal access to actual internet service by everybody should be protected.
Some people argue that even net neutrality rules are invasive and create a “backdoor” for government corruption into companies, however the government has backdoor access anyway through the CEOs and upper management of such companies being members of Establishment secret societies.
If net neutrality rules didn’t exist, then broadband companies would throttle and block the traffic of websites that have information critical of the political Establishment by claiming that the information violates the company’s definition of “political correctness,” no matter where the content actually originates from on the internet.
Essentially, having the government enforce “net neutrality” rules is like ensuring that everyone can have their books printed and everyone can have access to those books, while at the same time it is crucial that the government is not allowed to mandate the actual content of the individual books that are printed.