Merkel Says Big Tech Shouldn’t Have Power to Decide Who Has Free Speech
French Government “Shocked” at Twitter Banning of Trump
UK minister: Trump ban shows Twitter taking “editorial decisions,” could mean regulation
Isn’t it wonderful that leaders who were previously fanatical in outlawing “hate-speech” have seen the light? Well, it would be if they had, but there is not the slightest hint that they have changed any of their opinions. They have seen an opportunity to achieve two useful results.
- They get to set up a state-sanctioned censorship and governance apparatus for social media.
- They make sure that they are never personally targeted in the way the President of the United States has been.
What could go wrong?
In the U.S., this will probably involve modifications to Section 230 in some shape. Andrew Torba, who set up Gab, has been yelling as loudly as he can that removing Section 230 is a really bad idea. The section that protected Facebook and Twitter and YouTube also protected Gab and Parler and Rumble and BitChute and all of the other startups that are experiencing explosive growth as the 74 legitimate Trump voters, plus the millions of others who are sympathetic, realise that they must find alternatives.
The blacklisting and the censorship, and all of the other indicators of the four-year rolling coup-d’état that is now in crescendo, are shaking those people loose from the social media habits of decades. The established companies, through their direct representation in the Biden transition team and beyond, will be looking for their quid pro quo. Joe, a past master of the quid pro quo, will provide.