Big Tech vs Free Speech

Big Tech can make sure billions of people NEVER see dissenting opinions

News Editors

We’ve reached a critical tipping point in the United States in which we’re being turned against one another and silenced via wokism. I submit to you this hypothesis: Big Tech (social media, mainstream media, and companies like Google and Amazon) form an unofficial fourth branch of the government. They’ve gotten so big that they can make sure that billions of people all over the world are never exposed to dissenting opinions.

Now, on to my hypothesis. The government cannot constitutionally silence dissent or the free press. It’s right there in the First Amendment, which reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Of course, this doesn’t apply to private entities like Facebook, Twitter, or Amazon. They can censor anyone they want because they are not the government. So, is the government using these entities to censor opinions that they, constitutionally, cannot?

Not only are they able to shut down any conversation they want, but they’re also protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.  However, with this protection should ethically come the obligation to allow free discourse, something the likes of Facebook, Twitter, and Amazon have been wont to do.

Here’s where their connection to the government comes in.

In my opinion, if they are protected under this law, then they must act impartially in their moderation of content. If they choose not to act impartially, then they should be forced to give up that protection.

That won’t happen, however, because the voices currently being silenced are those that are speaking in opposition to the current administration. Without breaching the First Amendment and governmentally silencing critics, they’re allowing these media and social media outlets to do it for them, making sure that the only voices that are widely heard come from one side of the spectrum. They can do this with full immunity and wanton disregard to liberty because after all, these are private companies, right?

Perhaps not.

If they are moderating only one side of the discussion and allowing the other side of the discussion totally free speech, doesn’t it stand to reason that they must give up this government protection? That if they are moderating the content, then they don’t get the protection of being a free speech outlet?