President Trump took to Twitter on Tuesday to denounce Silicon Valley’s continuing censorship of conservative thought and media.
Of course, Trump being Trump, he did it in his usual direct and forceful way. In a punchy pair of tweets, he pointed to evidence of Big Tech’s discrimination and made a bold declaration—“This is a very serious situation—will be addressed!”
Here’s what the entirety of what the President said:
Within moments of Trump’s announcement, Larry Kudlow, Director of the White House National Economic Council, said that the administration would be “taking a look” at possible to rein in the arbitrary and unfair reign of Big Social Media.
In other words, within the federal government, a serious fact-finding and policymaking process is now beginning. About time! Indeed, Republican and conservative mistrust of Big Tech is so strong that it’s now easy to predict that significant regulatory or legislative action will be taken.
Interestingly, Virgil, sensing the same ferment on the right, made exactly that prediction, here at Breitbart News on August 19. Under the headline, “Flash-Forward to 2038: How the Federal Platform Commission Protected Free Speech,” Virgil anticipated the policy debate that might unfold over the next two decades.
His prediction was that the scandalous events of 2018 would inspire the country to take strong action against the Tech Lord’s abuses. Once again, this was before Trump’s latest tweet-storm. Although, of course, Big Tech’s outrages have been mounting visibly for a long time. Virgil, in fact, has been writing about this abuse for more than a year, as seen, for example, here, here, and here.
And in that August 19 article, Virgil laid out three broad categories of possible response: first, do nothing; second, anti-trust litigation; third, direct regulation.
By now, of course, “do nothing” is simply not acceptable. No one but a stooge—or a paid lobbyist—can say with a straight face that the Tech Lords are to be trusted.
As for “anti-trust litigation,” well, that seems sort of beside the point; if the problem is the unfairness of big liberal tech companies, then it’s silly to think that little liberal tech companies will be any better. Moreover, little companies would be harder to keep track of and would be more inclined to cut corners on security.
So that leaves “direct regulation” as the preferred alternative. Such direct regulation has, in fact, been the preferred solution in the past. Back in 1934, to stop abuses in communications, and to guide progress in a manner conducive to the public interest, Uncle Sam created the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). And in 1974, to help improve the ethics and transparency of federal elections, we created the Federal Election Commission (FEC).
We can step back and observe that both the FCC and the FEC have their flaws, but few, if any, think that we would be better off without them. Moreover, if Republicans, conservatives, and others have a problem with the way that the FCC or FEC operate, well, there’s a way to deal with that problem—get organized. That’s how the political system is supposed to work. Indeed, as we think about the elite billionaires who sit atop the commanding heights of Silicon Valley, we are reminded that political input is perhaps the only voice that ordinary people can have. That is, the Tech Titans don’t care what you think—that’s obvious. However, even they have to listen to Uncle Sam.
So with the positive precedents of the FCC and FEC in mind, Virgil suggested that what America needs now is a Federal Platform Commission (FPC). That is, a regulatory body that would ensure that Silicon Valley would not have control over American communications and elections. Most likely, it would supersede the FCC, even as it would work closely with the FEC.