Editor’s Note: The cuckservative is a familiar type in mainstream conservative politics. He is a weak, pretentious, hypocritical, grinning, effeminate, housebroken, sanctimonious loser. He is always fighting against those to his Right and sucking up to the rich and powerful in the name of his “principles” which he applies inconsistently. He is often seen being bossed around by his wife.

There’s something grossly entitled about claiming you should have government-mandated access to a social media platform you didn’t create, maintained by people you oppose, and that you should have that access for free. Against government intervention: https://t.co/rmmkJPs8XU — David French (@DavidAFrench) June 6, 2019

David French has written a new column on social media censorship that has thrown gasoline on the debate about whether a conservatism based on classical liberalism is capable of resisting the Left. The broader Right is finally beginning to see the cuckservative in their midst.

The reaction has been brutal:

David French should really sell his own brand of white flags. He could make a fortune. https://t.co/xZgzGjjZ8g — Ryan James Girdusky (@RyanGirdusky) June 6, 2019

David French is my reverse moral compass.



What Would French Do or Say is a good way of recognizing what is utterly fake, stupid, and harmful.



What Would French *Not* Do Or Say is a good way of opening up space for serious thinking. https://t.co/7429MmZjy5 — Richard ? Spencer (@RichardBSpencer) June 6, 2019

This boomer thinks access to social media is “free.”



You pay for it with your personal data, which gets them advertiser $, and your activity, which gets them investor $.



Only a National Review columnist wouldn’t know this. https://t.co/gyUpSY61Kg — Allum Bokhari (@LibertarianBlue) June 6, 2019

Would you apply this logic to the phone company? Consider AT&T, which is in its own way a social media platform. It’s a private company. You didn’t create it. Are you ok with AT&T denying service on the grounds of people making politically objectionable statements on the phone? https://t.co/oTVv8w8R1s — Dinesh D’Souza (@DineshDSouza) June 7, 2019

In response to the wholesale throttling & deplatforming of solely conservative voice, “conservative” #DavidFrench wants everyone to shut up and simply take the abuse. https://t.co/COoevdG0Rb — OutlawJoseyWales?? (@outlawjw) June 7, 2019

??Vichy conservative who thinks he’s safe if he accommodates the occupation of lobbyist-fueled-government-protectionism-enabled technology platforms that snuff out contrary opinions. When they are done with us they will come for you David, and no one will hear your nice theories. https://t.co/TpQoc8xQPy — Harmeet K. Dhillon (@pnjaban) June 7, 2019

Spoken like another thumb-twiddling Vichy conservative. There is no rage here, only action. I’m not willing to let the left – which controls platforms built with the benefit of government protection, conveniently absent from conservative apologists’ analysis–define our society. — Harmeet K. Dhillon (@pnjaban) June 7, 2019

I’m going to court tomorrow to fight the very behemoths you are constantly defending using flawed legal theories. Why don’t you be honest about the fact that these tech platforms contribute to the conservative groups that apologize for them and defend their totalitarianism? — Harmeet K. Dhillon (@pnjaban) June 7, 2019

Who is name calling now? It’s easy to write a piece about the lawsuit but when Google is a sponsor of many legacy conservative institutions, we see them defending these companies while failing to acknowledge that CDA 230 IS government protectionism. This is not academic to many. — Harmeet K. Dhillon (@pnjaban) June 7, 2019

David French:

“If you pay any attention to conservative Twitter, you’re aware of this week’s incident in social-media censorship. YouTube has “demonetized” conservative comedian Steven Crowder’s YouTube channel. He’s not banned, but he’s lost one of his income streams. His offense was targeting a Vox journalist, Carlos Maza, in his bits, including calling him names like a “lispy queer” and a “sprite.” … The regularity of the controversies — combined with the persistence of the overt viewpoint discrimination — is resulting in a demand that government “do something” to solve the problem. But the problem is far too complex and deep-seated for the government to solve. And if the government tries to step in with too heavy a hand, it’s going to violate the law. It’s past time for an honest, realistic look at the true cultural, commercial, and constitutional challenges to social-media fairness. …

But to say that there is no easy way to combat the challenge of social-media censorship is not to say there is no way at all. Persuasion, engagement, and market pressure are preferable to attempts to recruit the government to erode First Amendment protections that, in other contexts, stand as a firewall protecting conservative causes and conservative speakers from the emerging culture of coercion. … But what conservatives cannot and should not do is use the government to erode freedom for the alleged purpose of saving freedom. The alleged “easy” solution — the fast fix of federal legislation — is likely blocked by the First Amendment. Moreover, there’s something fundamentally entitled and not-conservative about claiming that you should have government-mandated access on terms you prefer to a platform you didn’t create, that’s maintained by people you oppose, and that you should have that access for free. …

And with the impulse to censorship on the rise, the answer to that question will be “yes.” The government does not exist to correct market outcomes that well-connected conservatives do not like.”

In summary:

1.) Yes, Big Tech is systematically censorsing conservatives on their platforms.

2.) Unlike bullying Iran or Venezeula, the government can’t do anything about it.

3.) True Conservatism is classical liberalism with $750 billion dollar military budgets.

4.) Big government is bad. The free market is good. Except for the military.

5.) It is a violation of the eternal principles of True Conservatism for the government to enforce anti-trust laws against Google or to regulate these platforms to prevent viewpoint discrimination.

6.) Yes, the government broke up AT&T and regulated telephone service as a common carrier which is why your phone calls and text messages can’t be censored by your provider, but that is completely different and there are reasons why this can’t be done to Google and Facebook.

7.) Even though they have the power to do so, government agencies like the FCC and FTC simply can’t regulate Silicon Valley because of True Conservatism.

8.) Silicon Valley probably needs to be rewarded again for its censorship and job destruction in Middle America too with more tax cuts, deregulation and cheap labor.

9.) Finally, you’re an entitled brat for complaining about corporate censorship. Pull yourself up by your bootstraps and hire your own army of lobbyists. These “American icons” like Google and Facebook are providing their services to you for “free” out of the goodness of their hearts!

This is what a neutered dog looks like: