Connect with us

Tech

FCC Chair Who Implemented Section 230 Admits Creating a Tech Monopoly Was the Plan All Along

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act has given rise to Big Brother.

Published

on

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) chair who oversaw the implementation of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act has admitted the mistake he and others made by creating special privileges in the marketplace that have allowed for the rise of monopoly tech firms.

Reed Hundt spoke to ProMarket about the monster he helped create when he led the FCC during the Clinton administration from 1993 to 1997. He explained that big tech monopolies and oligarchies were not created by accident, but by design through government regulatory policy.

“In every country, almost without exception, there is an antitrust policy and an antitrust history, and in every single country the narrative of this antitrust oscillates between applying some rigorous economic theory designed to promote efficiency, with a willingness to have winners, and another school where it is not just about efficiency—it is also about the social impact. And it goes back and forth,” Hundt said.

Trending: Dr. Anthony Fauci Plotted ‘Global Vaccine Action Plan’ with Bill Gates Before Pushing COVID Panic and Doubts About Hydroxychloroquine Treatments

“In the United States, almost uniquely among countries, the narrative in the rulings was about nothing other than efficiency, from roughly the late 1970s, which is when I started [working] at antitrust practice, until a couple of years ago. It is the longest run for the efficiency school that you’ll find in any country. That philosophy was meant to allow some companies to win the competition and become monopolies or oligopolies. That was the idea—it wasn’t an accident,” he added.

take our poll - story continues below

Are Democrats and the Fake News Media rooting for the Wuhan coronavirus to destroy the economy to remove Trump?

  • Are Democrats and the Fake News Media rooting for the Wuhan coronavirus to destroy the economy to remove Trump? 

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Hundt believes that the backlash against tech giants like Facebook is justified considering the circumstances.

“My conclusion is that Mark Zuckerberg, god bless him, who is a smart but really lucky guy, should not be surprised that people want to break up his company, because it’s exactly the same thing that happened to AT&T and also Standard Oil,” Hundt explained.

“Standard Oil was also embedded in society in every conceivable way: in shipping, transportation, industrial process, heating. When companies are that deeply entrenched, it isn’t anymore just about efficiency and markets—it is about their political power, social power, and influence power,” he added.

The tech giants have largely wielded their monopoly power in a way to destroy freedom of expression for conservative dissidents and protect legacy media outlets that are sinking fast. Section 230 has allowed these Silicon Valley monoliths to act as partisan publishers without being punitively responsible for the content on their platforms.

Section 230 reads as follows: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”

Hundt now admits the mistake that he and other regulators made when they were responsible for crafting the law in the 1990s.

“We were naïve. We were naïve in a way that is even hard to recapture. We all thought—Al Gore, me—that for people to be able to publish what they want would so enhance democracy and so inspire humanity, that it would lead to kind of flowering of creativity and emergence of a kind of a collective discovery of truth,” he said.

Hundt claimed that if he were in charge today, he “would probably modify” Section 230 because it has “immunized [tech platforms] from too much.”

One such reform that could reign in Section 230 is legislation proposed by Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) to force digital platforms to be neutral in how they prepare their algorithms and moderate their content.

“With Section 230, tech companies get a sweetheart deal that no other industry enjoys: complete exemption from traditional publisher liability in exchange for providing a forum free of political censorship,” Hawley said in a statement. “Unfortunately, and unsurprisingly, big tech has failed to hold up its end of the bargain.”

“There’s a growing list of evidence that shows big tech companies making editorial decisions to censor viewpoints they disagree with,” Hawley added. “Even worse, the entire process is shrouded in secrecy because these companies refuse to make their protocols public. This legislation simply states that if the tech giants want to keep their government-granted immunity, they must bring transparency and accountability to their editorial processes and prove that they don’t discriminate.”

The tech giants have become perhaps the most powerful entities in the history of mankind, and they will need to be cut down to size or the Orwellian Nightmare will become an inescapable eventuality.

Bypass Tech Censorship!

Facebook, Twitter and Google are actively restricting conservative content through biased algorithms. Silicon Valley doesn't want you to read our articles. Bypass the censorship, sign up for our newsletter now!

Bypass Tech Censorship!

Facebook, Twitter and Google are actively restricting conservative content through biased algorithms. Silicon Valley doesn't want you to read our articles. Bypass the censorship, sign up for our newsletter now!

Have a hot tip for Big League Politics?

Got a hot news tip for us? Photos or video of a breaking story? Send your tips, photos and videos to tips@bigleaguepolitics.com. All hot tips are immediately forwarded to BLP Staff.

Have something to say? Send your own guest column or original reporting to submissions@bigleaguepolitics.com.

Tech

Banished Journalist Laura Loomer’s $1.5 Billion Lawsuit Against Tech Giants Will Be Heard in Court

Loomer will have her day in court.

Published

on

Banished journalist and Florida U.S. House candidate Laura Loomer’s lawsuit against Big Tech will be heard in the court of law following an order in the D.C. Circuit on Thursday.

Loomer is accusing tech giants such as Google, Apple, Facebook and Twitter of conspiring to suppress conservative voices on their platforms. The lawsuit is challenging these monolithic corporations for allegedly violating antitrust law as well as the 1st Amendment of the Constitution.

Her lawsuit had been previously tossed out by U.S. District Judge Trever N. McFadden, a Trump appointee to the bench, who stated that “while selective censorship of the kind alleged by the plaintiffs may be antithetical to the American tradition of freedom of speech, it is not actionable under the First Amendment unless perpetrated by a state actor.” However, Loomer was able to use a recent court ruling to resurrect her lawsuit despite the initial setback.

Loomer’s legal team, led by the right-wing political interest group Freedom Watch, used the precedent of Packingham v. North Carolina, a ruling which determined that it was unconstitutional to ban sex offenders from social media. The case essentially set the precedent that social media is a 1st Amendment right.

take our poll - story continues below

Are Democrats and the Fake News Media rooting for the Wuhan coronavirus to destroy the economy to remove Trump?

  • Are Democrats and the Fake News Media rooting for the Wuhan coronavirus to destroy the economy to remove Trump? 

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

“Many of the principles set forth by the Supreme Court in Packingham lead to what appellants believe is the natural progression of the law to hold that social media companies are liable for First Amendment violations, given the progression of technology and its infiltration into the daily lives of nearly every single person,” Loomer’s team said in their final brief presented to the court.

Loomer points to Twitter banning her from the platform at the end of 2018 after she said that Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) adheres to a religion in which “women are abused” and “forced to wear the hijab.” She was similarly banned from Instagram for her assertion that Islam is “a cancer on humanity,” and Facebook, which owns Instagram, quickly followed suit and banned her even though the offending post was not made on that platform.

Loomer still cannot get her accounts restored despite the fact that she is running for the U.S. House in Florida’s 21st Congressional District, which could be considered a form of electoral interference.

Through her legal fight against the tech giants, Loomer is forcing them to reveal that they are no longer neutral platforms:

The tech behemoth Facebook has admitted that it is a publisher while defending its arbitrary censorship of banished journalist Laura Loomer, according to court documents.

Facebook banned Loomer’s account from their platform during a purge of popular conservative voices that happened in May. Others targeted by the purge included Milo Yiannopoulos, Alex Jones and Paul Joseph Watson. Loomer is striking back with a lawsuit that is unearthing some interesting revelations about the social media monolith.

“Under well-established law, neither Facebook nor any other publisher can be liable for failing to publish someone else’s message,” Facebook’s attorneys wrote.

Facebook actually has the audacity to claim that their 1st Amendment rights are being violated by Loomer’s lawsuit, in a total contorting of reality. They have filed a motion to dismiss the case.

“She claims Facebook labeled her as a ‘dangerous’ person who promotes hate – yet, the First Amendment has long protected such statements because they are opinions that are not capable of being proven true or false,” Facebook’s attorneys claim in their dismissal motion.

Right now, Facebook is protected under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act from being held liable for the content published on their platform. This special exemption worked fine when the social network engaged in relative neutrality, but those days are no more as Big Tech is at war with conservative and pro-Trump voices.

Loomer hopes to have her ability to communicate fully restored and to make Big Tech pay for infringing on her basic rights.

Continue Reading
It's time to name Antifa a terror org! Sign your petition now!


Trending