One of Sen. Elizabeth Warren's (D-MA) main talking points over the last few weeks has been about the monopoly technology websites, like Facebook, Google and Amazon have. In her mind, it sets a dangerous precedent for censoring public debate.
Recently, Warren's presidential campaign had ads on Facebook talking about her stance on breaking up big tech monopolies, and in particular, Facebook (yes, it is ironic). The social media giant responded by pulling the ads. Eventually, the ads were restored but the whole debacle proves Warren's point.
Curious why I think FB has too much power? Let's start with their ability to shut down a debate over whether FB has too much power. Thanks for restoring my posts. But I want a social media marketplace that isn't dominated by a single censor. #BreakUpBigTech https://t.co/UPS6dozOxn
— Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) March 11, 2019
And while Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) doesn't agree with Warren on much, he did back her up, saying big tech has too much power to stifle free speech.
First time I’ve ever retweeted @ewarren But she’s right—Big Tech has way too much power to silence Free Speech. They shouldn’t be censoring Warren, or anybody else. A serious threat to our democracy. https://t.co/VoesOKSqhA
— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) March 12, 2019
For years, conservatives have said that our speech is being stifled. They've "shadow banned" us to keep us from making our voices heard, all in hopes of permanently silencing us. People who disagree or call out big tech are often suspended from the website or their interactions/mentions are limited. Think of how many people have been banned from Twitter, YouTube and Facebook alone. Alex Jones. Laura Loomer. Jacob Wohl. Whether or not you agree with their politics, positions or statements, one thing is for sure: they've been silenced for not agreeing with the company's leadership.
Recommended
The reality is simple: we rely on social media and search engines, like Google, to spread our message, whatever that message may be. We connect with people all over the world in hopes of engaging them with our philosophical ideals. When the platforms' owners decide that our thought process is wrong, we're stifled. And that's a real threat to society.
Having a healthy debate and discussion is one of the fundamental principles of our nation. Censoring speech does nothing but further divide our nation. If we can't talk with one another (or a group of people en masse) then how are we supposed to hear opposing points of view? How are we to obtain our news?
Censoring a person's speech, regardless of who he or she is, is a dangerous road. It's how other nations ended up with state-run TV and internet.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member