Loads of good details on how to pin back the social media censors.

With even President Trump now on board with the need for censoring the censors of the Twitter/Facebook milieu, and with the public, in general, even actually aware and up in arms, now is the time to strike, while the iron is hot. A fantastic new article by J. Burns at Natural News has a playbook for how it can be done--using the power of government to kill a government-created problem. If that sounds odd...yea, it is...but better to attempt it now while conservatives (nominally) have some allies in power (or at least people pretending to be conservative) to get the job done, and to hope it can stand the coming liberal tidal waves of the future.

Here is that article:

https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-08-23-the-pathway-to-solving-social-media-censorship-how-president-trump-can-take-on-the-tech-tyrants.html#

Here is an important excerpt from the link above:

"The Government Gives Social Media A License to Censor. The common response to conservatives and others who complain about Twitter/Facebookl s censorship is that the Socials are private businesses which can censor anyone they want. Under this theory, they are private companies that can refuse service to whomever they want.

This is somewhat true, but not because the Socials are private , but because these companies have uniquely been deputized by the federal government to censor speech. In return, the Socials are granted full immunity from lawsuits by Charles Johnson, Alex Jones, and anyone else upset at the arbitrary destruction of their speaking platforms. The Communications Decency Act (“CDA”) Section 230 (47 U.S.C. § 230), keeps Charles Johnson, Alex Jones, and countless others who could successfully sue Twitter, Facebook and other Socials out of court."

The article then goes on to detail UNDER CURRENT LAW the ways in which these large social media platforms are NOT private in the same sense that your corner grocery store may be. They have set themselves up in a legal sense toward being like public utilities in that they USE the public to make money on the "speech" of the public. This represents the heart of the legal opportunity that the article then details for us, and how to reverse the damage that these private censors have done to free speech.

(Alex Jones of Infowars.com)

Here is another brief excerpt from this very important article:

"Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946) is an excellent comparison point. In that case, a Jehovah’s Witness was handing out religious materials on the streets of a town entirely owned by a shipping company. The shipping company told her she needed a permit to hand out the magazine, and had her removed by a deputy sheriff for trespassing. The US Supreme Court held in favor of the Jehovah’s Witness, reasoning that the more a property owner opens his property up to the public in general, the more his rights are circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who are invited in.

The Social Media situation is similar to Marsh v. Alabama. Just as the shipping company controlled the streets and sidewalks of the company town, Social Media giants hold monopolies on the electronic public speech common areas. Over 90% of online Americans are on Facebook. Almost 30% are on Twitter. Because they are monopolies, where is the public supposed to go? The Court can’t say you have free speech only in the town park where no one goes. The common area where people are discussing politics is online, often on these platforms."

The above section is the meat of the conservative/First Amendment argument, and there is some reason to believe the courts will side with the currently aggrieved (like Alex Jones) as they did with the JW missionaries. The public certainly agrees based on the limited polling that has been done surrounding internet censorship. One fact that the article writer does not cover is the fact that some of these major internet companies (including moving beyond just the social media platforms to places like search engines and ISPs) were the recipients of large cash infusions from DARPA-like government black ops budgets, meaning YOU PAID FOR THESE PEOPLE TO HAVE THE RIGHT (and ability) TO SPY ON YOU AND CENSOR YOU. That needs to be brought in to the discussion as well at some point, IMHO.

Here is a final exceprt:

"President Trump has a once in a lifetime opportunity to secure free speech on the internet. Twitter and Facebook have engineered a program of cultural genocide. Their goal is social engineering, and to push their left-wing agenda by covertly silencing their political opponents and amplifying their ideological friends. Their goal is to eliminate entire ways of thinking. By shifting the range of ideas which can be discussed , a man is made a prisoner in his own mind. Thoughts which cannot be expressed are not easily remembered. That which cannot be remembered is forgotten and erased: cultural genocide.

We’re witnessing a watershed moment in the history of American speech. The Social Media threat to speech is an existential threat to freedom in this country because the technology involved is so subtle, so powerful, and without the ability to combat its effects. We’re on the verge of a cultural revolution. What we’ve been seeing in the past couple years is the emergence of a new generation within media companies."

These media companies are not out hiring 50 and 60-year olds with some institutional memory of how America is supposed to operate, and with at least some fleeting memories of The U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. These places are hiring recently propagandized socialists right out of college who have no respect at all for American founding documents or traditions. These 20-somethings are dangerous change agents for the New World Order, and the writer is so correct that the time is NOW to repair the damage, and to teach these little foot soldiers that the generals are corrupt and that the real rule of law still reigns.

We shall see what philosophy prevails, and it will be an interesting few months, to say the least. What happens with the recent rash of social media censorship will likely set the tone for the entire future of the American political landscape.