top of page

Trump stripped of Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc. Why you should care

Editorial submitted by Conrad Doyle

How many times have you heard the cry “Revoke 230”?

What is it, and why should I care?

By now you have no doubt heard that Trump has been banned from a number of social media outlets, but you are not sure what the fuss is about and why should we, as a free country, care?

The crux of the issue is Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

Section 230 allows internet platforms to censor the content on their websites, meaning they can decide who gets banned, which posts get deleted, and who gets to stay and continue to push their agenda or opinion.

Last fall hearings were held regarding big tech and it’s selective censorship targeting specifically conservative posters or organizations. In opening statements, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, Alphabet Inc. [Google’s parent company] CEO Sundar Pichai, and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, sought to make the argument that stripping Section 230 media law protections would stifle free speech, and called for alternative regulatory solutions.

These hearings were held to specifically address alleged anti-conservative biases on their platforms and their moderation practices. The hearings were called for amid a cloud of growing bipartisan antitrust scrutiny and concerns over the censorship of a New York Post report covering the Hunter Biden laptop allegations.

Committee Chairman Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) said in his opening statement that he’s concerned these platforms have “become powerful arbiters of what is true and what content users can access.” Other senators during the hearing brought up the censorship of the New York Post article on Hunter Biden. They criticized the censorship, calling it a double standard, pointing out that a New York Times story on the president’s illegally leaked tax returns wasn’t censored, and the now-discredited Steele dossier was widely shared without fact-checking, or disclaimer.

It would take the entirety of this paper to cover all the opinions of various notable people and platforms, so let’s just agree that these powerful CEO’s can, have, and will censor anything that we say or share on their respective web-sites.

The result of this censorship then makes these company’s less about the sharing of free speech, ideas and thoughts, making them instead propaganda machines. If you post anything that opposes their liberal platforms, you will be “fact-checked” by one of their paid “unbiased censors”, and blocked if your posts, comments or information is deemed “harmful, malicious or false”.

I was extremely disturbed by a comment posted by a former “news anchor” last week, when it was announced that President Trump had his Twitter account permanently closed and him banned from the platform for life. Of all people, a reporter from a local TV station celebrating the shutdown of free speech just because they did not like the person, was disturbing to me.

Of even more concern to me, personally, and should be for you as well, was the censorship of a Bible verse I shared with friends of mine on Facebook. Who, in a free world, would have ever thought that the sharing of a scripture verse would be found to be offensive or harmful? Whether or not you follow or ascribe to any religious school of thought, the removal of a Bible verse for any reason should shake you to your core, and that, my dear friends, is why you should care.