Others are jumping on the bandwagon to ban sites from the internet
If you have any familiarity with dogs at all, you might be aware of the "pack mentality". Individually, a dog might be well-mannered around other animals. But, when two or more of them are released and allowed to roam with no supervision, their prey drive will sometimes kick into high gear and instead of herding animals, they begin to stalk them. If they catch their prey, they will kill it. After they kill it, dominance has to be established and the toughest dog will get to eat first. That dog is, at least in this pack, the Alpha dog.
On the same day that some of the social media sites banned Alex Jones from their sites, a few other dogs showed up to the party and have decided to join in to attack their prey.
Senator Mark Warner seems to be leading the pack at this time and a leaked memo from his orifice that was obtained by Axios first gives his rationale for wanting to control the internet (The Carrot: combating disinformation, protecting users' privacy and promoting business... all the things they promise to do for "us") and then goes on to detail how he would do it (The Stick: fines, censorship... all the things that they promise to do to "us"). His proposals are full of "good intentions"... at least until you realize who would be in charge of administering the carrots and who would be wielding the sticks. Suffice it to say that the social media companies would be policing themselves, UNTIL the government decides that they aren't doing it well enough. If the company didn't do their job to the satisfaction of the government, said government could fine them and take control of the situation, doing the censoring for them. The government would get to decide what was fake, doctored, false, etc. Warren's ideas for the future of the internet would also make certain companies "essential facilities". This is code for this company is so important that if the company can't handle their own affairs, the government will do it for them. We have progressed from being "too big to fail" to being "too important to be free". The proposal weaves a litany of government overreach that, if any of it ever actually gets codified into law, will bring the internet to its knees as we all become subservient to the whims of bureaucrats that couldn't run a lemonade stand into anything but bankruptcy.
Sen. Warner even goes so far as to cite Russian disinformation as a reason for his proposal... a proposal that seems more apropos for the now-defunct U.S.S.R. than for a free country, with all of it's draconian and ill-advised measures.
Next to enter the dog pack is Senator Chris Murphy, who tweeted yesterday that "Infowars is the tip of a giant iceberg of hate and lies...". I'm sure that many would agree with him. But, when it comes to deciding which sites should be taken down or censored, who decides where the line is drawn? As much as I disagree with the actions that YouTube (Google), Facebook and Apple (iTunes), I can predict with reasonable accuracy which sites will be in their sights. But, if the government has a say in the targeting, as is proposed above by Sen. Warner, will we see "equal justice" with all being held to the same standard, or will we see some future administration weaponize this new department and apply the standards to certain political foes? As we've seen in times past, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Evil is not inherent in any technology, object, law, or what have you. Evil is in the hands and heart of the one that wields it.
When the courts were debating pornography in the 1970's, one jurist remarked that he couldn't define pornography, but he knew it when he saw it. Eventually, the bans that made pornography illegal disappeared. A lot of this was because no one could define it in a way that was not overly broad. But, isn't it interesting that today we find ourselves in the same position with respect to "fake news" and "hate speech"? No one can actually define it, but many claim to be able to recognize it and if they have the power, ban it from their websites. It's also interesting that the definition that they use seems to fit their particular political ideology and worldview. The "majority" that they often refer to, are just the people of like mind that happen to agree with them. They never hear from the other side, simply because they don't tend to associate with people with whom they often disagree. This is the definition of the "echo chamber". Whether your views be to the right or to the left, an echo chamber only lends itself to reinforcing your own beliefs, with no regard to the opposing viewpoint.
Politicians and bureaucrats are just like us and some of them just can't recognize a bad idea with a sign hanging on it that says "BAD IDEA". Even if the current crop of politicians were completely honorable (and I'm sure that we would all agree that some, many or all are not), we cannot allow the implementation of laws that will almost certainly be abused by the politicians of the future that will not be so honorable.
If you gave someone the keys to your home, you would expect them to be returned if that person moved away or were no longer needed. You wouldn't want them handed off to the person that moves in after him. You haven't developed a trust or bond with that person. We need to think along the same lines, when we think about giving the government ANY new power. Once a law is passed, it is no longer possible to decide who gets to enforce it. Times and administration change and the newcomers receive all the power that was bestowed on their predecessors. We need to remember that and take action when they propose new laws that, while they might seem to suit our wants and desires now, might be turned against us in the future.
I doubt that these proposals will go anywhere in the current climate. But, political enemies can often become bedfellows when it will increase the power that they wield. There are politicians on both sides of the aisle that would love to see some or all of these proposals be made into law. I don't believe that there are sufficient numbers to pass it right now. But, there is an election coming up that has the potential to shift the political landscape quite dramatically and unpredictably. Will they have the numbers to pass it, then?
We had better hope that they don't and if they try, we have to stop them while we are allowed to disagree with them. While it is far from certain whether Google, Apple and Facebook will succeed in their current efforts to stifle the free interchange of ideas on their respective platforms, it is very certain that the government will be hard pressed to relinquish the power, once it is given to them. We can also assume that if these proposals make it into law, the companies will not be the Alpha dogs, but will be subservient to the pack leaders within the government. If and when this happens, it won't matter which party has the most power. Both of them will be the enemy of freedom, at one point or another. As someone near and dear to me once said, "Both parties are taking us to the same dark place. They're just taking us down different dark roads to get there." I think there's a lot of truth to that.