This is a discussion point CTH has outlined for quite a while; the new aspect is the scale and scope of Big Tech’s latest effort to silence voices they define as against their interests.

President Trump has taken notice of the issue and over the past 48 hours he has been drawing additional attention to the problem. Things are going to get a lot worse, a lot worse, in the days and months ahead.

.

In the final analysis, the big picture is about authoritarian control. Currently the largest tech companies are leveraging their power and influence to remove dissenting voices from commonly used social media platforms. Back in 2015 there was a prescient discussion between Matt Drudge and Alex Jones where this exact scenario was outlined.

Unfortunately, federal political leadership is aligned with Big Tech’s goals and opinions. This is one of the issues where the UniParty becomes most visible. There is a history of similar common cause that might provide reference.

In 2010 when the Tea Party was targeted by President Obama’s Attorney General, Eric Holder, the DOJ and IRS worked together to create the target list of voices they deemed adverse to their political interests. Because the establishment republican party was also a target of the Tea Party, the GOP and DNC viewed the Tea Party political rebellion as a common enemy. In 2019 and 2020 the same dynamic exists.

Populists, ordinary freedom loving Americans, are considered an enemy of the statists; adverse to the interests of the institutionalists. As a result DC politicians have no motive to confront Big Tech and their goals to silence voices based on inherent political views.

.

“Dangerous”. My opinions? Or giving a handful of giant partisan corporations the power to decide who has free speech? You decide.https://t.co/cTCoLs0Op2 — Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) May 2, 2019

Lmao at establishment conservatives who think they won’t be labeled the new “dangerous” / “extremist” voices when those to the right of them are all banned. Good luck with that one guys 👌🏻 — Lauren Southern (@Lauren_Southern) May 3, 2019

Those suggesting Facebook can ban anyone for any reason because they are a private company do not understand the platform/publisher distinction or the special legal protections afforded the former. — Jeremy Boreing (@JeremyDBoreing) May 3, 2019

When did we decide, as Americans, that it's ok fo govt & 3d parties to censor/ curate our info? That we cannot be trusted with unfiltered info? That we shd only be able to find info that *they* tell us is true on matters that are opinion or in legitimate dispute? #SlipperySlope — Sharyl Attkisson🕵️‍♂️ (@SharylAttkisson) May 4, 2019

When did we quit teaching/understanding that free speech means protecting the distasteful, lest we open the door for govt/3d parties to decide that whatever they oppose is "distasteful" and therefore to be banned? #SlipperySlope — Sharyl Attkisson🕵️‍♂️ (@SharylAttkisson) May 4, 2019