We’ve been hearing in recent weeks that members of Congress on both sides of the aisle are finally getting serious about busting up big tech monopolies and going after their constant law-breaking, but new information revealed in documents uncovered just recently prove that’s a lot of hot air.
Not only isn’t Congress going to regulate big tech, but it’s why they won’t: Big tech is in cahoots with the federal government to spy on and censor American citizens.
The Montana Gazette has more:
It’s not just a left-right issue. Whether Republicans or Democrats, there is an actual written agreement between Big Tech and at least one state government to censor people who are critical of politicians. The Deep State documents are now a matter of public court record, made available by Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai. And according to the court record, the judge presiding over the case has insisted on the documents being entered into the public record because they are absolutely revolutionary.
“Around the United States in more than a dozen states, legislative efforts have been underway to stop the censorship of conservatives by companies known colloquially as Big Tech,” the outlet’s report continues.
“These companies, which act as communication utilities with monopolistic control over social media, have been censoring conservatives and Christians at breakneck speed – as almost everyone is aware. The argument set forth by freedom advocates is two-fold,” it adds.
First off, advocates for enforcement of anti-trust laws (and the Constitution) have consistently argued that big tech, writ large, is a monopoly. Consider that Google, for instance, controls most all internet searches and the vast majority of internet advertising revenue. Facebook is the monolithic social media site, while Twitter, of course, dominates that spectrum of social media. And so on. Together, “these companies coalesce together and share the same censorship policies,” says the report, citing the documents.
“As the world learned following their crackdown on conservatives in 2020, bans on various figures are well-coordinated and happen often times simultaneously,” the outlet added.
That’s true; Natural News founder and editor Mike Adams, along with conservative media mogul Alex Jones and even President Donald Trump were all booted off the major social media platforms at nearly the same time.
“However, it has been difficult for conservatives to hold Mark Zuckerberg and his Big Tech acolytes accountable for their viewpoint discrimination. In congressional testimony, Zuckerberg repeatedly denied acting prejudicially against conservatives,” said the Gazette.
But lawmakers in Montana and elsewhere are taking a different approach; if they could prove, for instance, that the social media behemoths were censoring Americans on behalf of Uncle Sam, that would be actionable in courts of law.
And they appear to have found their proof, thanks to Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai.
An Indian-American engineer, entrepreneur, and inventor who is best known for his candidacy for U.S. Senate against Elizabeth Warren in 2017, Ayyadurai is a super-academic who managed to find a document online titled, “Elections Interference Operations Playbook for State and Local Officials,” the Gazette reported.
Specifically, the document reveals an agreement between Twitter and the federal government to censor speech that is critical of elected officials. Via an entity known as the Twitter Trusted Partnership and Twitter Partner Support (PSP) Portal, federal and state governments can request a “censorship order” whereby Twitter responds to downgrade critical content in exchange for being left alone by government.
“When Americans complained about Big Tech censorship, Big Tech companies simply shrugged it off as their right as private companies to censor whomever they want; they did not explain that Big Tech is censoring Americans on behalf of the government,” the Gazette reported, adding that changes the legal paradigm in a big way.
By outsourcing blatant First Amendment violations to social media, “Twitter can hind behind the veil of Section 230” of the Communications Decency Act “and the government can claim that it isn’t censoring anyone,” the outlet adds.
If Ayyadurai’s legal actions don’t produce results, then literally the only alternative is to simply abandon the platforms.