The constitutional issue is whether censorship practiced by a publicly held monopoly that exhibits the attributes of a communications utility can qualify as state action sufficient to implicate the First and Fifth Amendments when it proceeds from thinly veiled warnings from Congress, voiced in public hearings, that if censorship is not p…
The constitutional issue is whether censorship practiced by a publicly held monopoly that exhibits the attributes of a communications utility can qualify as state action sufficient to implicate the First and Fifth Amendments when it proceeds from thinly veiled warnings from Congress, voiced in public hearings, that if censorship is not practiced legislation will follow. The answer is unclear, but I think the question is sufficiently meritorious and close that litigation should be initiated and pursued.
Otherwise, we are left with a situation in which billionaires control social and political discourse, regulated only by the very politicians they have purchased wholesale. That is a recipe for authoritarian disaster. The primary goal of neoliberalism is to privatize the public realm, ultimately political speech and discourse. Neoliberalism's defeat begins with the redefining of what is public and what is private.
I don't think the 1st and 5th amendments are likely to bear fruit. There is no likelihood of redefining the tech companies as public. In any event that road could easily lead to totalitarian fascism. I think ultimately it will take both antitrust litigation and legislation. Trouble is that DC has become nearly devoid of principles, with everything being about winning and losing power in a zero sum game. As other have posted, this threat should have been dealt with long ago. The power wielded by big tech now makes a solution very difficult, if not impossible.
I agree with you. These giant tech companies are so entangled in the government through contracts, hiring out as consultants to the Pentagon and Department of Defense, working for the government by collecting information which they turn over to it, etc., that they have become literal arms of the government. Glenn has said it is not good business to exclude and censor internet users, but the tech giants do it because they are essentially told to (threatened) by Congressional representatives and members of the government. When a Congressman says he/she is unhappy that you do not censor more, if you know what's good for you you do it. Therefore, censorship is being done at the behest of the government and I believe that implicates my Constitutional rights. I believe in a multi-pronged approach to the issue of censorship.
"Otherwise, we are left with a situation in which billionaires control social and political discourse, regulated only by the very politicians they have purchased wholesale. That is a recipe for authoritarian disaster."
Agree, which is why the constitutional issue I have described should be raised, along with the broader effort to redefine and reassert the public realm -- the commons. I also agree that anti-trust can be useful tool (per the comment below), but disagree that defining broadly used tech platforms as part of the commons, and thus subject to public control, could "easily lead to totalitarian fascism." I know of no such example in the utilities context, and if democratic control to assure open speech and discourse threatens fascism, then we are doomed indeed.
Yes and no. We are not doomed but politics will not save us as there are forces in our government too corrupt to even speak of. There are so many people who are aware of the dangers, so many who aren't. Our world is extremely broken at this moment in time. BUT we are free to share love, connect each other, see the humanity within the soul. Take away the phone, social media - all this garbage is a way to get us hooked, forget our humanity, and then take away our "freedom". But the internet isn't the source of our freedom. What did people do before it? They got to know each other. This is the sign all along that the internet is a source of oppression where people see only the most superficial aspects of humanity without coming close up and seeing humanity face to face soul to soul. yes i know this comment has almost zero to do with your previous comment - but i firmly believe that despite all the bad things that are going on, there is a vacuum of loneliness that desperately wants to be filled. When we act on our humanity then people really are truly good at heart. No more political media lies, identity politics, or the politicization of anything. It's broken, it won't help us.
The constitutional issue is whether censorship practiced by a publicly held monopoly that exhibits the attributes of a communications utility can qualify as state action sufficient to implicate the First and Fifth Amendments when it proceeds from thinly veiled warnings from Congress, voiced in public hearings, that if censorship is not practiced legislation will follow. The answer is unclear, but I think the question is sufficiently meritorious and close that litigation should be initiated and pursued.
Otherwise, we are left with a situation in which billionaires control social and political discourse, regulated only by the very politicians they have purchased wholesale. That is a recipe for authoritarian disaster. The primary goal of neoliberalism is to privatize the public realm, ultimately political speech and discourse. Neoliberalism's defeat begins with the redefining of what is public and what is private.
I don't think the 1st and 5th amendments are likely to bear fruit. There is no likelihood of redefining the tech companies as public. In any event that road could easily lead to totalitarian fascism. I think ultimately it will take both antitrust litigation and legislation. Trouble is that DC has become nearly devoid of principles, with everything being about winning and losing power in a zero sum game. As other have posted, this threat should have been dealt with long ago. The power wielded by big tech now makes a solution very difficult, if not impossible.
I agree with you. These giant tech companies are so entangled in the government through contracts, hiring out as consultants to the Pentagon and Department of Defense, working for the government by collecting information which they turn over to it, etc., that they have become literal arms of the government. Glenn has said it is not good business to exclude and censor internet users, but the tech giants do it because they are essentially told to (threatened) by Congressional representatives and members of the government. When a Congressman says he/she is unhappy that you do not censor more, if you know what's good for you you do it. Therefore, censorship is being done at the behest of the government and I believe that implicates my Constitutional rights. I believe in a multi-pronged approach to the issue of censorship.
we're already there.
"Otherwise, we are left with a situation in which billionaires control social and political discourse, regulated only by the very politicians they have purchased wholesale. That is a recipe for authoritarian disaster."
Agree, which is why the constitutional issue I have described should be raised, along with the broader effort to redefine and reassert the public realm -- the commons. I also agree that anti-trust can be useful tool (per the comment below), but disagree that defining broadly used tech platforms as part of the commons, and thus subject to public control, could "easily lead to totalitarian fascism." I know of no such example in the utilities context, and if democratic control to assure open speech and discourse threatens fascism, then we are doomed indeed.
Yes and no. We are not doomed but politics will not save us as there are forces in our government too corrupt to even speak of. There are so many people who are aware of the dangers, so many who aren't. Our world is extremely broken at this moment in time. BUT we are free to share love, connect each other, see the humanity within the soul. Take away the phone, social media - all this garbage is a way to get us hooked, forget our humanity, and then take away our "freedom". But the internet isn't the source of our freedom. What did people do before it? They got to know each other. This is the sign all along that the internet is a source of oppression where people see only the most superficial aspects of humanity without coming close up and seeing humanity face to face soul to soul. yes i know this comment has almost zero to do with your previous comment - but i firmly believe that despite all the bad things that are going on, there is a vacuum of loneliness that desperately wants to be filled. When we act on our humanity then people really are truly good at heart. No more political media lies, identity politics, or the politicization of anything. It's broken, it won't help us.