Fox News reports that according to Federal Election Commission records, 94% of donations from top employees of Google (which owns YouTube) go to Democrats, as do 99% of donations from Twitter employees.
It’s no surprise that both platforms are routinely accused of silencing and censoring conservative voices. When called on it, they deny it, or claim that it was a “mistake,” as YouTube just did after reinstating a song critical of Biden’s botched Afghanistan withdrawal. Gee, remember when songs criticizing the government were considered classics of the ‘60s?
YouTube claimed that the video's images might be “offensive to some audiences.” Mostly Biden campaign aides, I would imagine.
Still, even with the growing likelihood of a Republican takeover of Congress, many GOP voters are discouraged that Republican Congress members publicly complain about Big Tech leftist censorship but will not change any laws to stop it or make them legally accountable. But there might be another way to force Silicon Valley to end its biased business practices.
That is a post by Charles Glasser at Instapundit, explaining how people who have been harmed by Big Tech censorship might be able to get around their Section 230 immunity and sue (BTW, they should have lost that immunity long ago for their blatant violation of the requirement not to act as editors of content.) It’s a complicated legal argument, but well worth reading. In a nutshell: If the Administration has been colluding with these companies to silence users they disagree with – which it seems obvious that they are – then there’s precedent to show that they are acting as de facto government agents rather than private businesses, which means they are required to obey the First Amendment.
And if they can be held legally accountable for every time they’ve violated a user’s right to free speech, the floodgates of lawsuits will be thrown wide open. Couldn’t happen to a more deserving group of defendants.