You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Internet Censorship: The Dirty Truth
While I think you can make the argument that internet service is a public utility (though they really shouldn't be), I don't think you can say that companies like Youtube and Facebook are such. While they should not get taxpayer money, that's hardly a criteria for a public utility. Any company will take taxpayer money if it is offered. You can't attach strings after the fact. The solution isn't further government regulation. That would be disastrous at best. The solution is more and better censorship resistant distributed services like the one we are using now.
While I completely agree as to your proposed solution, I do not agree that the FAANGs aren't beholden to respect the First Amendment. Not only are they publicly funded, they aren't making chocolate bars, they're public fora. Their business model requires that they use public funds in a manner that completely conforms to the First Amendment - and particularly if those funds are covertly disbursed, as the gambit with Peleus and InQTel shows was attempted.
Otherwise you're arguing that the government can covertly fund and create Fakebook and avoid the First Amendment. Since simply laundering government funds doesn't wash away the restrictions on government power, that is not a lawful and just argument.
I disagree. I control the speech in my house. I control the speech in my business. They are not "public". I don't believe that private businesses should generally receive taxpayer money but that is another issue. Regardless, companies like Youtube are still private businesses and unless there were legal strings specifically attached to whatever money they received from the government, then they should not be subject to any additional restrictions. I don't believe government should be able to fund private businesses at all except to purchase legitimate products and services needed for government function. But like I said, that's a separate problem. If government created its own facebook then it wouldn't be a private company at all. The government does not own youtube nor should it and it should not be forced to behave as if it did.
Why do you believe Youtube should be required to host your video any more than a newspaper should be required to print your story? Or a TV station to show your video? Or a book publisher to publish your book?
Do you have any links to how government funds youtube? I couldn't find anything after a quick search and I would be curious as to how much and for what purpose this funding is for.
But, government DID create Fakebook. It also has ownership stakes in all the FAANGs, and much covert influence as well.
Have a look at the image that fronts this post for a lead on where to seek the funding routes. The image isn't exhaustive. When you think you've found it all, there'll be more.
Much laundry passes through advertising as a mechanism, and the financial links between corporations are extensive. Let's not ignore the fact that Goldman Sachs is basically a CIA front, either, and covert infestation of the financial industry is rampant.
The FAANGs are essential government services. Not only aren't they private 'public' fora, they aren't independent of each other either. From the purging of Infowars we see they are all utterly coordinated and under the control of one entity.
They are utilities. They are a monopoly. They are a creation of the USG. On all three counts they aren't free to censor whom they will.
But if all that is true then the solution isn't even more government regulation and control which if they were enforcing their idea of the 1st amendment on them is exactly what you would get. The solution is to eliminate those financial ties and influence. In other words, end efforts like In-Q-Tel. But regardless, just because the government put up some of the venture capital, doesn't mean they created something. Nor does it mean they should have control of it unless you are saying they are the majority stakeholder and own most of the stock. I do not believe that to be true though.
If I start a company, make the company public (i.e. sell stock) and then the government decides to buy some of that stock (possibly covertly), then they should have control over my company and be able to tell me that I can't decide who publishes on my platform? If it turns out the government has stock in a newspaper company or publishing company then that means anyone then has the right to publish there? That's giving the government an awful lot of power.
I don't see how on earth you could call facebook or youtube monopolies. There are plenty of alternatives, one of which we are using right now. They also compete with other media entities around the world.