SOCIAL MEDIA SHOWDOWN WITH SCOTUS OVER SECTION 230 IS FINALLY HERE – SCOTUS has granted a “writ of certiorari” in the Gonzalez v Google case. The case tests Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The constitutional question is if Social Media loses its liability protections when it becomes an editor of content through political censorship.
The showdown has been anticipated, dreaded, and hoped for since at least just after 2016, but even more after 2020, the year of the mass mailer election, the election that never was.
The news comes just after an announcement that Elon Musk appears ready to finalize the Twitter deal after promising to make Twitter more amenable to the American spirit of freedom of speech, which means, essentially, freedom from consequences for more than speech alone.
What happens next at SCOTUS, I would suggest, is more about the reality of power at the highest levels of corporate power in America today than it is about the legal reality of the case to be adjudicated.
This handful of the most powerful families in America has been mostly betting on the China model, hoping to create in America something like China’s version of “capitalism,” one which allowed for the existence of billionaires while eliminating most future competition from impeding on that market power in any way.
For the American billionaire families, they’ve bet, I theorize, that they could create a China model that blended the state and the corporation so that the billionaires in their China could not be disappeared by the party leader. They only have to look at the fate of Jack Ma and other billionaires in China that were recently purged by Chairman Xi to understand the fire they might be playing with by going down this path.
They’ve utilized the emerging market of China (along with other world emerging markets, but none which come close to China in size and potential) to fund a lot of their China-transformation conditioning back home.
By “China” I mean the China model of Socialism that emerged after the reforms of the 90s starting with Jiang Zemin, who ushered in China’s “glasnost” with a new contrivance called “socialist market economy.”
These former Americans (AINOS, Americans in Name Only) aren’t pro-China, they’re not seeking to become a vassal of the Chinese Empire. They seek to use China, as China seeks to use them, for their own party’s advantage.
They are ultimately enemies, and both sides know it. They both have data the other side wants. They both have markets the other side needs. They both see humans the same, as non-individuals meant to be fitted into a social oneness these billionaires create for their own self-empowering ends.
I believe the kids are using the phrase “frenemies” to describe what the party of the corporate-American state, the DNC, and the party of Xi, the CCP, have been since their initial entanglement, which may have begun with Nixon, but certainly was well on its way by Bush I. They’ve made a pact on Survival Island to assure they’re the last two standing, and they can then settle this between themselves at that moment.
Yes, I call this a DNC-CCP frenemy alliance, but I started off with two Republican Presidents being the catalyst of this union. DNC is a catch-all phrase that represents all the real servants of the DNC, be they “Republicans” (DNC operatives that infiltrate other parties) or so-called Anarcho-Leftists who don’t understand how they’re nothing but brown-shirt pawns of the DNC (who will suffer the same fate of the brown shirts when the DNC no longer needs them).
Something has changed recently that, I believe, has caused some billionaire families that bet the farm on the China model of socialism, the socialist market economy, to question the soundness of that decision for a number of reasons (including Xi’s authoritarian crackdown on inhouse billionaires and his tightening of the access to the glorious Chines market).
The Elon Musk buyout of Twitter (should it be finally finalized, for real this time, no takebacks) is a leading indicator that the coalition of AINOS among the billionaire families is cracking.
The number one protector of the DNC narrative, the number destroyer of DNC opposition, is social media. The big platforms, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Twitch, Chinese-owned TikTok, have all developed algorithms to censor and ban dissent while elevating pro-party-line agit-prop Molotov-cocktail-throwers (like Vaush).
All the other DNC-favoring institutions, including our own banking system, follow the lead set by social media and market-kill the DNC opposition for good (or so they believed).
They’ve done this non-capitalist, non-free-market action because they had the Section 230 protection which no powers that be were interested in seeing come to the light of day anywhere near SCOTUS. They also had the mega billions of dollars they were raking in from foreign markets and foreign contracts (including with China).
They could afford to offer an un-American product to an American market because they were no longer dependent on it financially, fellow AINO market conspirators protected them from rival platforms, and they oppose the American republican social contract founded on the principle that every individual is sacred in and of themselves. That model creates way more competition, and what billionaire families want most, it would seem, is less competition.
Now, some powers that be allowed this issue to get to the Supreme Court. What’s happening behind closed doors can only be speculated, but the decisions that will be made, I support, will be reflective of the reality of power behind those closed doors.
Maybe, perhaps, some AINOS have lost their nerve and want to walk back from the abyss of trashing America’s sacred individual social contract once and for all. If so, the court will end the coalition of AINOS’ power to continue to seek to create a product, a DNC acolyte, rather than deliver a product AMERICANS want, a social media experience that allows for a level playing field for all political, religious, philosophical, etc. views, and community governance that reflects American values, not Communist, Marxist, or even Socialist ones.
We are individuals, and even dangerous ideas, even misinformation, must remain free to be expressed if we are to restore and then preserve of our American ideals of the sacredness of the individual in and of themselves.
