Op-Ed: How the GOP Can Do Tech Censorship Without Disrupting the Digital Economy

When the GOP wins big in 2022, and especially if it regains power in the executive and legislative branches in 2024, the first thing it needs to do is attack Big Tech and entice the oligarchs. But, when it does so, it must do so in the right way. It cannot take a sledgehammer over the digital economy that has fueled America’s growth, nor can it continue to act clumsily and mutter about concepts it clearly doesn’t. understand.

Let me first expand (briefly) on those two topics, before I dive into what exactly it should do. Understanding what it shouldn’t be is just as important, if not more, than ruining the economy or looking like idiots would be as bad as doing nothing.

Why it shouldn’t destroy the digital economy:

The first thing the GOP must avoid doing when participating in Big Tech is to avoid sabotaging the digital economy. That means it can’t try to destroy, disrupt, or limit the reach of companies like Facebook and Twitter. Sure, we’re mad at them right now, but let’s not forget all the good we can do because of their existence.

Conservative media companies like Trending Politics, Daily Wire and Conservative Brief all do pretty well with spreading their message on Facebook, and some of the meme accounts on Facebook-owned Instagram do well. Conservative pundits like Jack Posobiec, Kurt Schlichter and Matt Walsh do pretty well on Twitter. Because those platforms exist, conservative news and media companies have been able to deliver a message they probably wouldn’t be able to.

The problem is that they censor some of the major conservative/reactionary thinkers. BAP was kicked off on Twitter. Trump has been removed from Twitter and Facebook. So does Mike Flynn. So when the GOP takes over those Big Tech companies, it has to do so in a way that is targeted at solving the problem of censorship but without ruining those distribution platforms, because without them, all We’re going to get a lot worse.

It doesn’t matter whether these companies are big, they make a lot of money or that they are online rather than in the real world, as many say. The real problem, and the only reason we need to go after them, is that they have censored thought.

Just think of all the entrepreneurs who make money from advertising on Facebook, the media companies that make money from Google Ads and drive traffic on Big Tech social media platforms and the deep thinkers Colors can express their thoughts and interact with their audience thanks to Twitter and Facebook.

Therefore, GOP policies that must address censorship while preserving the digital economy have empowered and enriched so many prominent thinkers, key speakers of truth, Non-base media companies and professionals, and entrepreneurs.

I’ll find out how it can do so after describing why the GOP needs to do enough research to know what it’s talking about.

Please, GOP, know what you’re talking about

The last time the GOP held Big Tech hearings, what should have been a good first step on the road to ending Big Tech censorship, was more or less a disaster. Why? Because the older senators and congressmen (remember that at this point we’re basically living in old-fashioned nationalism) obviously don’t know what they’re talking about.

Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wisc.) Ask Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook head on why Donald Trump Jr. locked his twitter account. Okay, boomer.

Obviously, such an inefficient approach will not yield any worthwhile results. Tech tycoons won’t listen to legislators who don’t have the slightest clue about platforms, Democrats will use the confusion of elderly GOP lawmakers to sneak up on terrible terms Terrible for any bill, provisions can raise the problem of censorship rather than solve it, and approaching a problem we don’t know risks breaking a system that just needs to be tinkered with.

That means we must elect not only conservatives in 2022 and 2024, but also elect the right kind of conservatives. We need more people like Hawley who understand the problem thoroughly and have enough opportunities to solve it, not more boomers who don’t even know the difference between Twitter and Facebook.

Specific steps GOP should take

So, without further advice, what should the GOP do? How can it solve the problem of censorship without ruining the brilliant digital economy and distribution network that Big Tech companies have created for us?

By revising, without repetition, Section 230 of Chapter 47 of the United States Code, commonly known as the Communication Discipline Act. Moved back when the Internet first started, (C) of the action allowed “Protection for the “Good Samaritan” to prevent and screen offensive material. ”

Specifically, that section of the act grants immunity to digital service providers from editing content in good faith, stating that “No vendors or users interactive computer service shall be deemed to be the publisher or speaker of any information provided by others information content provider“And” No Vendor or User interactive computer service will be responsible for:”

  • any action taken in good faith to limit the access or availability of material that a provider or user deems obscene, lewd, lewd, filthy, unduly violent, harassment or objection, whether or not the material is constitutionally protected; or
  • any action taken to enable or give information content provider or other technical means to restrict access to the material described in paragraph (1).

The rest of Section 230 is well drafted and probably needs no revision, much less repetition. However, (c) needs to be changed to reflect that these digital service providers, are far from the forum-style services imagined when the Information Discipline Act was passed. , is actually a modern public square.

Because their success has turned social media companies – Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, etc. – into public squares and storage and search companies – web hosting Amazon and Google – into highways information, the GOP needs to change the law to reflect that we all have the right to speak out in public as long as we don’t endorse anything illegal.

That means changing the terms that say “any voluntary act taken in good faith to limit the access or availability of material that the provider or the user deems obscene, lewd, obscene, obscene, excessively violent , harassing, or objectionable, whether or not the material is constitutionally protected” for something that protects the First Amendment rights of users of digital services.

Perhaps editing the back of this envelope would be satisfactory:

any act taken voluntarily in good faith to limit access or availability of material that federal law deems obscene, incites violence, or otherwise illegal under US law

That change will mimic a proposed Polish law that, when passed, would make it illegal for social media companies to remove posts or lock accounts unless the post or account violates Polish law. I’m sure there may be more editing needed, but at least it’ll be a good start.

Such a change would be a small one, but it would dramatically change the audience that tech companies are allowed to moderate. A provision adding a substantial fine, say, $177.6 million, for banning or targeting people for reasons not authorized by the act would also need to be added.

Porn shows can still be launched, degraded child pornography can still be shut down, and people inciting violence on platforms (which are illegal) or calling for illegal behavior legitimate can still be deleted.

But, which means that companies can no longer censor people or remove them for expressing unpopular opinions. We wouldn’t have to worry about getting started on social media and losing our livelihood just because some engineers in Silicon Valley disagreed with our political views.

That’s about all that needs to be done. If you are harassed by someone online or view illegal content but you disagree, the block will still exist. Just click on it. At the same time, however, those who express unpopular but not illegal opinions will not be removed from the public square simply for stating their opinion. And, at the same time, the digital economy will be preserved. Companies will simply go back to their old pre-Trump policies and stop banning misguided people.

At a time of high emotions like this, it’s easy to fall into a state of mind that holds grudges and calls for accusations like Sulla’s. But such a radical path would backfire, as it would destroy the companies that have empowered some of the great thinkers and entrepreneurs. Instead of destroying them, we just need to change what they are allowed to censor to reflect the fact that they have become public. In this case, the “moderate” path is much better and leads to better outcomes for everyone.

What do you think? Is that the path the GOP should take when trying to get into Big Tech or should it be something more? Comment below!

https://smartzune.com/op-ed-how-the-gop-can-take-on-tech-censorship-without-wrecking-the-digital-economy/ | Op-Ed: How the GOP Can Do Tech Censorship Without Disrupting the Digital Economy


Inter Reviewed is an automatic aggregator of the all world’s media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, all materials to their authors. If you are the owner of the content and do not want us to publish your materials, please contact us by email – admin@interreviewed.com. The content will be deleted within 24 hours.

Related Articles

Back to top button