Big Tech or Big Government Social Media Editing: Which do You Prefer?

Think back about six or seven years or so. Facebook took over the social media world, and Twitter was contemplating upping their allowed digits in tweets to accommodate the verbose pack of young socialites dying to talk louder and with more content. YouTube allowed anyone with a cellphone camera to start their own video channel at no cost and post just about anything. Ah…Life in America was so simple then.

Then came 2016; then came Donald Trump! Social media went stark raving crazy! Social Media will NEVER be the same again.

Leave it to the Orange Man to bring the focus of almost every American to the trappings of the First Amendment. There are scant examples of serious and purposeful infringement on Americans’ right to Free Speech BEFORE the verbose Big Apple billionaire hit the campaign trail. To the horror of the Left, he was a conservative! OMG: the political world was NOT prepared for the uproar he caused, nor the results of his jumping into the 2016 presidential campaign among the populace. They were ill-prepared for the takeover of the GOP by Mr. Trump. And the majority of the Old Guard stood by and watched in horror as their kingdom evaporated before their eyes, only the be replaced by REAL conservative ideals owned by no one — except the American people! How in the world did THAT happen!

Looking in our rearview mirror, we understand now that Trump filled a void vacated by Ronald Reagan’s completed two terms in the White House. Attempts to carry forward that Reaganesque concept of government once more “of, by, and for the People” fell flat during the Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43, and Obama 28-year rule over us all.

Americans were starving for someone in Washington leadership who would listen to regular citizens and confront the concerns brought to them sufficient to change things. The People watched with dazed expressions as one by one, conservatives in Congress rolled over and gave the Left everything they wanted. In doing so, it obviously mattered little to GOP leaders that their actions flew in the faces of conservative Americans: you know, those hard-working, entrepreneurial Middle-Class folks who worked their butts off to feed their families while employing others like themselves who faced the same issues.

H.W., Bill, George, and Barack all wore the public down. Many threw in their cards and learned how to “go with the flow.” It didn’t pay to try and push for the return of Reagan’s policies. The Republican mainstream kicked those to the curb when Bush 41 took the reins. Once again, D.C. became a moderately toothless and ineffective governing body. They loved it! Americans hated it.

Donald Trump was a breath of fresh air. Oh, he promised the citizenry while campaigning all the things they wanted to hear — just as had 41, Bill, 43, and Barack and Hillary was doing at the time. But he came with something his opponents — especially Hillary — did not offer: credibility. Unlike his predecessors, Trump brought some real accomplishments from his life that none of the others had! Conservative Americans liked that — and made him their president.

Social Media Explosion

They didn’t want Trump to win. They chose Hillary. Why? They could control her. They gave her campaign millions expecting her victory and then “Quid Pro Quo.” Trump turned them away. They were determined to make him pay. And pay he did. For that matter, he’s still paying for his ill deeds!

Trump spent his four years in office and since dealing with the Dragons of Control in the U.S.: Social Media giants Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Amazon. Amazon itself is NOT a social media outlet, but their CEO owns The Washington Post, which trolls Trump more closely than Zuckerberg and Dorsey!

Hillary slept for a couple of years but now has stuck her nose back into the national political scene. But she’s no longer a Washington politician. She fashions herself to be a government “Expert.” We all know what it means: Anthony Fauci better watch HIS back. Hillary has a slew of corpses in her rearview mirror!

She’s become an “Expert” on Social Media, public communications and its operations, and who should be calling the shots on the internet news, broadcast radio and television, and even in print news. She’s especially targeting Social Media.

I thought it appropriate to turn the conversation over to an expert in this field who has much personal knowledge of the former Secretary of State and First Lady: Hillary. Dinesh D’Souza is a guy who has a history of standing quietly for a while, just looking in. And when he spots significance that needs to be brought to us, he almost always “brings the mail.” We step aside for the thoughts of Mr. D’Souza:

With Hillary Clinton, I didn’t really expect a resurrection, but I knew that, if it happened, it would be a strange one. Sure enough, Hillary’s back, and this time she makes a bizarre case for why digital moguls should not only censor more; they should also be forced to censor more by the U.S. government. Her point is that democracy itself requires this, a surpassingly odd claim for a former candidate of the party that calls itself “democratic” to make.

Let’s turn to the video clip that Hillary Clinton recently released. The key sentences in an accompanying tweet are that “democracies can’t thrive when citizens can’t agree on what’s true.”

Tech companies, she contends, have made “algorithm-driven conspiracy rabbit holes a feature of our information ecosystem.” Hence, “there needs to be a reckoning” and government itself must mandate censorship when it’s not being generated voluntarily by the digital companies.

To my way of thinking, this is an attack on free speech and on democracy. It’s nothing less than a formula for tyranny. We can see this by looking more closely at Hillary’s argument. Like most arguments, it turns on the truth of its basic premise. This premise is that democracy somehow requires its participants to agree on “what’s true.” Hillary defines this to mean general unanimity on three things: facts, evidence, and truth.

Yet we have had a two-party system in this country virtually from its beginnings, and the two major parties have never in fact agreed on these things, not merely in times of great crisis, but even in calmer, more ordinary times. Hamilton and Jefferson, for example, disagreed on whether the Constitution gives the federal government the power to create a national bank. Hamilton said it does; Jefferson said no.

Both appealed to the Constitution. Jefferson said there was no specific authority in the document to create a bank. Hamilton insisted that nevertheless there was implied authority, since the Constitution proclaimed the goals or ends of government, and then gave Congress the power to do things “necessary and proper” to those ends. Thus, we have here, and on the part of two of the leading founders no less, basic disagreement on what the Constitution in fact permits.

Fast forward now to the Lincoln–Douglas debates in the middle of the 19th century. Lincoln accused his Democratic opponent Stephen Douglas of being pro-slavery. Douglas denied it, insisting he merely wanted to leave the slavery question up to each state and territory to decide for itself. Lincoln claimed that this attempt to evade the basic moral question was in fact the most pro-slavery position imaginable, because it concealed the wrong of slavery by hiding it behind a seemingly neutral procedure. Again, Lincoln and Douglas disagreed on the facts, on the evidence each side produced in support of its position, and on the truth itself.

More recently, toward the latter part of the 20th century, President Ronald Reagan proposed a missile defense program that leading Democrats said would never work. It was technically impossible. Reagan insisted that it would work. Democrats produced leading scientists—Nobel laureate Hans Bethe, the Union of Concerned Scientists—to say it couldn’t be done. Reagan produced his own luminaries—Edward Teller, inventor of the hydrogen bomb, top scientists at Los Alamos and Livermore national laboratories—who said the exact opposite. A basic dispute over facts!

This dispute over facts became a broader dispute over evidence and truth. Democrats went on to say that no missile defense could stop every incoming Soviet warhead. Reagan said that wasn’t necessary, since deterrence could be achieved merely by blunting the force of a Soviet first strike against American land-based missiles and military targets. Bottom line: The initial dispute over technical possibilities became a broader dispute over what the real objective was, and what was necessary to get there.

Finally, let’s consider the events of Jan. 6. While the Democrats insisted that they witnessed an insurrection, a terrorist attack, and an attempted coup, they never bothered to define these terms and match them up against what we actually saw, what actually happened. As many conservatives and Republicans have subsequently asked, is it possible to have an unarmed insurrection? The last insurrection against the U.S. government was in 1861, the attack on Fort Sumter. Can Jan. 6 reasonably be compared to that?

The other terms seem equally preposterous. Coups are forcible attempts to overthrow a government and seize power, as with the Pinochet coup in Chile. Yet on Jan. 6 no one even stuck around the Capitol for more than an hour or so. What kind of coup attempt is that? Finally, is it possible to have a terrorist attack without anyone being killed? The only person intentionally killed on Jan. 6 was Ashli Babbitt, a Trump supporter, shot by a Capitol Hill police officer. What resemblance is there between Jan. 6 and genuine terrorist actions like the Oklahoma City bombing and 9/11? The answer is clearly none.

The basic point here is that truth is elusive. It doesn’t come delivered on a silver platter. It emerges as a consequence of ongoing, spirited debate. Even the basic terms of the debate are often disputed. Facts are in dispute, evidence is in dispute, and truth is seldom agreed upon, if ever. This has been known at least since the time of Socrates, who said that ignorance is man’s natural condition and knowing how little we know is the first step toward wisdom.

Hillary’s clear motivation is to make herself, and her party, and the digital moguls that are allied with her side, proprietors of the truth. They get to say what facts are really facts, minimizing all facts inconvenient to their narrative. They get to decide what counts as evidence, dismissing evidence that strengthens the case of the other side. They become custodians of truth itself, and arrogate to themselves the right to silence the other side in the name of protecting truth from error.

In the name of protecting democracy, Hillary is attacking democracy, because democracy requires free and open debate so that citizens can see the diverse courses of action available to them, and hear the competing cases for going one way instead of another way. Only then can they make wise decisions upon adjudicating the merits of the facts, evidence, and arguments presented to them. We can either have the robust give-and-take of genuine democracy, or we can let Hillary and her ilk decide everything for us, and rule tyrannically over us.

Summary

I heard one conservative talk show host soothe the concerns of conservatives in a conversation about Big Tech and Social Media going after conservative content: “The federal government will never allow that. A case or two will end up at the Supreme Court, which will kill these attacks on the First Amendment.” One thing I’ve learned over the past 20-3o years is “never say something will never happen.”

The Left is armed and ready to take total control of everything that is part of communications. They feel empowered by their control of Congress and the White House. By flooding our border with illegals with no end in sight, it is obvious they plan to not only provide everything those illegals need to survive in the U.S., but they will also eventually give them each citizenship with a right to vote. With that comes the universal control of one party.

Power: it’s ALL about power. Controlling the votes will give Democrats unfettered power over the nation.

Will that happen? Your bet’s as good as mine. And mine says it’s becoming more and more likely each day this American populace allows continued law-breaking with NO accountability implemented for doing so by our federal government. Who would have thought they’d all be thumbing their noses at any law-breaking without enforcement of those broken laws? Bush 43 is today voicing his support for the continued allowance of these illegal migrants!

Do you want to let folks like Hillary Clinton set ANY standards for regulating Americans in any way?

“Nothing changes if Nothing changes.”

If those who govern are not soon forced to abide by the Rule of Law, we better all take Spanish lessons. Soon, instead of an automated telephone message that asks the caller to push for one for English, it’ll be a message that says, “For English, press number 4.”

I don’t know which languages will be numbers 1 through 3. But the fact that English drops to #4 tells a lot about Leftist goals and objectives. And Social Media giants will be nothing but partners in the dismantling of the United States of America.

To Download Today’s (Tuesday, May 11, 2021) “TNN Live” Show, click on this link:


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.