Image by Marco Oriolesi

RLD For Congress

Entertaining and Interesting

 
Search

Corporate Communism An Oxymoron? Or a complicated Reality?

Big Tech Censorship seems to have already crossed into communism as defined by the UN Declaration of Human Rights;


The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the freedom of speech, religion and the press. ““Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.””


The common counter argument to Big tech and its bias ability to censor and de-platform anyone whom they choose is quoted to be the fact that “They are private companies and not in fact the government which is what the first amendment pertains to”


Recently there has been much backlash against many conservative voices speaking out against this for comparing it to Communism. There seems to be a blanked black and white ideological cognitive dissonance suggesting corporate censorship and a governmental one. I find this argument to be moot and quite frankly entirely incorrect for a myriad of reasons starting with “The UN Declaration of Human Rights” in 1948.


“Freedom of information, speech and the press is firmly rooted in the structures of modern western democratic thought. With limited restrictions, every capitalist democracy has legal provisions protecting these rights. Even the UN Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the general assembly in 1948 declares "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers” - (Cited April 6th 2021 Censorship and Freedom of Speech Capitalist vs. Communist Theory on Speech and Press Freedoms https://cs.stanford.edu/people/erober... ).


Even if we were to take the “Only from Government approach” Time’s Magazine article “The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election” It explicitly details collusion; "In a way, Trump was right. “There was a conspiracy unfolding behind the scenes, one that both curtailed the protests and coordinated the resistance from CEOs. Both surprises were the result of an informal alliance between left-wing activists and business titans…For more than a year, a loosely organized coalition of operatives scrambled to shore up America’s institutions…Their work touched every aspect of the election.” So as we can see, The big tech oligopolies were, and likely still are working in collusion with government as they enact their censorship despite being “Private Corporations” Social Media corporations in communist countries too, censor many aspects of speech as well in cahoots with the Communist government. If One is censored by "WeChat" in China, where does WeChat censorship end and Communist China begin? Ownership in company? How do we define ownership today? ability to influence? tax breaks? shareholders? Extortion? the conflict of interest outside of the perimeters of this argument are endless and with no clear reason, free speech, or legal bias? Why is Parler banned from The Apple Store when it was Facebook by where all of the Jan 6th coordination happened? as we can quickly see, this is in no way legally uniform or even founded on reason.


There is another point to be made, these social media companies themselves such as instagram, do not produce their own content and greatly rely on their content creators who’s content they monetize from along with the share of other news. This brings up an important question pertaining to the two points stated at the open in unison and interdependently; Pertaining to the first amendment, how do we define “press” in the age of new media and in a world where platforms rely on content creators and to the UN’s Point “” this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers” Often the backlashes we hear is in verbiage like “Corporate Sanction Communism” which is argued to be an oxymoron. However there simply doesn’t seem to be a precedent for the unscrupulous collusion and mergers of power we see today between big tech oligopolies and government where the explicit details of government-CEO democracy interference is openly, proud and overt. However for all intents and purposes, it is safe to say that government & limited partners censorship collusion is something that the founding fathers intended to prohibit. This however irrelevant thereafter when one considers the UN’s definition of capitalist democracy in the first place. Section 230 therefore, becomes a derivative problem, not the principal, which my ethos, philosophy and campaign revolves around standing by our rooted principles as intended as a conservative, this big tech censorship clearly is in no way shape or form what anyone intended and by definition already in violation of “A Capitalist Democracy” Therefore the details of Section 230 and its violation thereof is quite literally a secondary problem to the fact we have indeed already crossed the line of communism by contrast to what we already are not. They are also PUBLICLY Traded companies who produce no content of their own nor whom pay content creators or licensing like a Netflix.


70 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All