Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc. are not private companies. They are corporations that exist because of a government charter and are therefore granted certain privileges that would not exist in a free market. Trump regulating them to ensure that everyone gets to be heard will still be better solution than the Democrats trying to lock up everyone to the right of Chairman Mao for hate speech.
This is no different from the argument that people shouldn't be allowed to choose what insurance to buy because healthcare happens to be partially socialized.
It's an old fallacy that corporations wouldn't exist in a free market; read Robert Hessen's "In Defense of the Corporation." Why do you assume that Trump regulating these companies will "ensure that everyone gets to be heard"? Is Trump a bot that has no personal interests? He certainly hasn't shown any interest in exonerating Edward Snowden or Julian Assange from publishing what they wanted.
And when the Democrats are in power, what then?Government regulation is always bad, no matter the industry.
I wish someone would document for all to see just how much government has aided these giants to become giants and how much government has hindered their competition. I suspect it is true, and I see it written by others, but so far I do not see the details presented. It is an important story if true, especially during this campaign season.
I will say that one bright spot to the endless censorship will be the silencing of autistic lolbertarians.
Re: Paul Hansen,Not showing enough solidarity to your authoritarian inclinations, Paul?Aw.
Paul Hansen - "...and as for me: take my liberty, or give me death!"
David T. - " If I can't have Eutopia in one fell swoop, I'll continually whine about the NAP until I die!"
That's fine, but what about the other end where these companies are getting government contracts, central bank support, licensing/regulation resulting in limited competition, and so on to get as big and dominating as they are? Censorship in the USA is achieved by regulating and subsidizing to a few dominating corporations and then when those companies censor making the private company argument. The argument to make in response to censorship from private companies isn't more government, it's to rid us of the government mechanisms that make the censorship by these companies meaningful. If they couldn't count on what government grants them censoring could render today's giant into tomorrow's has been.
Re: Jimmy Joe Meeker,--- it's to rid us of the government mechanisms that make the censorship by these companies meaningful. ---Who's arguing for more governtment mechanisms? Only leftists and the OTHER leftists (DJT-ers) - those who support more state intervention but for their own causes.
Yes, leftists, like yourself who refuse to address the root cause and reduce government but then make the 'private company argument' for the present conditions in a effort to use libertarian ideas against themselves.
"I am not sure I would agree with Norberg that the Wahington Post provides more truthful news than Breitbart..."Norberg only said this is people's perception.