Mr Robinson comments:
So who gives executives of private companies the right to decide that some unapproved speech will be encouraged and some will be suppressed? Do we want the people who run Amazon, PayPal, Facebook, Twitter or perhaps even - shudder - Microsoft, Apple or Google making political decisions on our behalf?I think that Mr Robinson is off track a bit in that the First Amendment protects us from private organizations, but from government actions. But, he is correct to worry about private organizations having too much power. However, they are not making "political" decisions for us, but protecting their own interests. If we don't like decisions they make we vote with our dollars. But, we also sometimes compromise. Google bothers me, but I am using a Google program to do this blog post.
For my part, I don't think I do. It seems to me that especially as Internet firms reach near-monopoly status, we should be increasingly uncomfortable with them making political decisions of any kind - even those with which we might agree.
But, at the same time, we have the United Nations stepping forward to regulate the Internet. Here is the Instapundit's post, with a further link, from Australia. As Professor Glenn Reynolds asks, "WHAT COULD GO WRONG?".
Then there is the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) wanting to regulate the Internet.
At this time, the vast majority of people across the globe, but not governments or mega-businesses, benefit from an internet that is not regulated by the UN or the FCC. Lets keep it that way.
Regards — Cliff
♠ Remember, articles in The Sun go away after a while, to a different place. I will not be updating their links unless I am bedridden and have read every book in the house. Here is a longer lasting link.