Facebook vs. Conservatives

Facebook has abused its power over who gets to see what content and should be put in its place

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg speaks at Facebook Inc's annual F8 developers conference in San Jose, California, U.S. May 1, 2018. (Reuters/Stephen Lam/File Photo)

According to socialist Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren, Facebook and other tech giants such as Google, Twitter, and Amazon should be broken up. In an ironic twist, Facebook immediately validated the senator’s concerns by taking down her Facebook page soon after she called for Facebook’s dismantling.

She then tweeted, “Curious why I think FB has too much power? Let’s start with their ability to shut down a debate over whether FB has too much power.” 

Is she right?

Although it pains me to say this: She is.

In fact, in all likelihood, that’s one area where many conservatives would agree with the socialist-leaning Massachusetts senator. After all, it’s an established fact that Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Facebook, along with Jack Dorsey, the CEO of Twitter and many other social media platforms actively and regularly censor conservatives. It’s not even up for debate at this point. They’ve admitted their bias.

To put it in blunt terms, if you’re a conservative or libertarian, especially a successful and significant one, the statist technological potentates in Silicon Valley don’t like you. Literally, it’s personal with them. More to the point, they hate your point of view and will often find ways to prevent your message from being published. That’s just who they are.

Monopoly or Monopsony?

Is Facebook really a monopoly? Does it have dominant control over the supply of media? Does it actually produce content? That answer to these questions is “no.”

Facebook isn’t actually a monopoly. A monopoly is where an organization has controlling dominance over supply. For example, for decades, AT&T was the only phone company for millions of Americans because stifling regulation served as a barrier to entry for would-be competitors. This monopoly on supply allowed AT&T to exercise control over the price and access to telephonic communications with minimal competition.

In contrast to controlling the supply of content, Facebook has been described as having dominance over the demand for it. This makes its position in the market a monopsony. It controls, or at least has tremendous influence over and advantage in, how users access content. What’s more, it also has the power to determine the kinds of content it makes available for users to access.

The Power to Restrict Access Is the Power to Censor

In short, Facebook, along with the other tech and social media giants, have the power to restrict information that they don’t like. Again, they’re not owning or even creating content in any way. But instead, they own users’ access to it and revoke that access to users when they decide that content is inappropriate or offensive.

The problem is that both of these criteria are rather elastic. At any time, they can be as broad or as narrow as, well, as Zuckerberg, Dorsey, and Google decide they should be.

Did you catch that?

Mark Zuckerberg et al have their own, self-determined standards on what constitutes proper or valid content and that which, in their opinion, does not. Not the Federal Communications Commission, nor any other federal agency. Just Mr. Zuckerberg, Mr. Dorsey of Twitter, and a handful of other narrow-minded, anti-conservative, leftwing bigots wielding algorithms to silence ideas and opinions they don’t like. They’re literally a cluster of ideological Maoist billionaires who hate free speech.

Controlling the Bridge to the Market

Think of it as if Facebook built and owned the first bridge into Manhattan, for example. This new bridge opened up access to all the business opportunities on both sides of the bridge. Then, a competitor—say, Instagram or Twitter—builds a bridge down the street. There’s now healthy competition for access to business and buyers, right?

But wait—Facebook then buys the Instagram and Twitter bridges—and most others—and so no matter which bridge you use to access Manhattan, Facebook owns it. It gives them the power to block a business’s access to customers. And with 2.37 billion monthly active users, that’s a lot of power.

It’s the same with internet search engines. Is it really “Google versus Bing?”

“Bing who?” you might be asking. Yeah, it’s just Google.

The Tip of the Zuckerberg for Totalitarianism

But in reality, these companies are just the “tip of the Zuckerberg.” The fact is, Facebook, along with Google, Twitter, Amazon, and a whole slew of other internet, tech, and social media leaders, are helmed by postmodernist fascists who don’t like people with traditional values. They especially don’t like those who convey them effectively. Chances are, they don’t like you.

And, since they’re all billionaires, or at least make more than enough money to ever spend in three lifetimes, they’re fine without your business. They also wield significant influence with like-minded lawmakers, and that’s putting it mildly.

So, they decide to drop you, block you, suspend you, edit you, minimize you algorithmically or otherwise censor conservatives like you. You, your business, and especially your conservative values, be damned. Even without notice, and often so, your entire online presence, your digital persona and even your business lifeline on Facebook can be scrapped.

Economic Persecution on Social Media

But that’s just the beginning. Once we move beyond personalities and values, the real harm done is at economic persecution of those with whom they differ politically. Think of it like refusing to allow a liberal—or a conservative—to buy gas to put in their car or to advertise on public television. It shouldn’t be allowed.

Denying access to basic needs and services or preventing some citizens from using public airways is illegal, unethical, and immoral. And yet the leftist cats in Silicon Valley love playing their little social media god games that let them destroy your means of earning a living if you’re a conservative.

Meanwhile, your dyed-in-the-wool socialist/communist neighbor who openly favors the overthrow of President Donald Trump, or worse, is good with them. It’s nothing less than political suppression via economic repression—or vice versa. In fact, one may even catch the stench of the social credit system that is used by the Communists in China to oppress those folks who don’t think correctly.

But no. Not here. Not now. Not ever.

Break Them Up — Before They Break Us Up

These are the reasons that these technocratic dictators need to be broken up. They’re technologically brilliant children who have no idea what the U.S. Constitution is, why it is, and why it must be protected. All they care about is getting their way and shutting the mouths of people—Americans—who differ with them.

Tyrannical petulance is a distasteful character trait in a five-year-old, but a major character flaw and a political and economic hazard in social media CEOs. They’ve proven time and time again that they’re not up to the task of protecting the rights of Americans.

It’s time the adults stepped in and take the toys away.

James Gorrie is a writer based in Texas. He is the author of “The China Crisis.”

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.