Chaos Insurgency

Big Tech Sued as an Antitrust Monopoly

Big tech sued as an antitrust monopoly by the Department of Justice (DOJ). Critical headlines as it shows Americans have begun to fight back against media tyranny.

Sure, conservatives are “standing up” by creating or supporting new, conservative websites, but it will take years if not decades before they rival those of “big tech.” Consequently, we need these antitrust lawsuits to quickly produce results while they add even more conservative users.

Unfortunately, don’t expect changes anytime soon or ever, for big tech lobbyists to control Washington D.C. For this reason, the real solution is building a new conservative media infrastructure, then later adding the left to form an all-encompassing mainstream media again. So, let’s get to work supporting the new conservative media sites.

To be clear, I see no way big tech can be re-educated to become an asset to America. Sorry, I wish it wasn’t so.

FAQs – Big Tech Sued as an Antitrust Monopoly

Is censorship by social media companies illegal?

“Big tech” censorship is legal as they are private companies with “Section 230” liability protection.

Why does our DOJ want to break up “big tech,” rather than just eliminate “Section 230” protection?

“Big tech” controls over 90% of the online social media and search business. As required by law, it’s the DOJ duty to break up monopolies to stimulate competition.

How Will How Will Breaking Up Big Tech Improve My Life?

Watch Youtube stars Glenn Beck and Tim Poole discuss social media bias against conservatives by the dominating sites (40-minutes).

We like our “big social media” and “big search” services. However, more and more, their obvious market dominance enables them to effectively censor opposing views, which stifles the market and also makes them politically dangerous.

But why do they feel the need to censor? Rather than offering an open platform as responsible Americans?

Regaining Free Speech

The answer why is a unification of large egos and a new world vision driven by globalization. Somewhere along the line, probably in a university teaching Marxism, teachers taught them that our constitutional republic is an outdated form of government.

And, our capitalistic system encourages them! Up to a point, when they run smack into our antitrust laws, namely the Sherman Antitrust Act.

Practically speaking, there is no doubt social media is censoring conservatives to suit their ingrained liberal “Community Guidelines.” But, it’s confusing when they act as “Platforms,” when officially classified as just lowly “Publishers,” like me.

Who is putting out the fake news?

Deciding who is putting out fake news is not the job of “social media publishers,” especially when acting more like a “Community Platform.”

So bothersome, as I read articles about how liberal websites and social media feel they have the “duty” to censor “dangerous” conservative information.

Bothersome, because I know they are talking about me when I’ve done the research and find that they are the ones putting out fake info. Ok, I’m tired of this!

For, this discussion could go on forever!

In my view, the structured, sinister mind-control programs of mainstream media censor conservative thought.

How Trump “Puts the Screws” to Social Media Censorship

To challenge the Section 230 carveouts granting liability protections for dominating social media companies, Trump signs an Executive Order. And so, now they are open to lawsuits for damages (like everyone else) by not following our 1st Amendment when banning or limiting ideas different from their own.

While the social media companies had a field day making up their own rules about what constitutes “hate speech,” those days are over, as a new Executive Order from Trump opens the door again to liability for damages from free speech violations.

Section 230(c) of the Federal Communications Act

“Section 230(c) was designed to address early court decisions holding that, if an online platform restricted access to some content posted by others, it would thereby become a “publisher” of all the content posted on its site for purposes of torts such as defamation. As the title of section 230(c) makes clear, the provision provides limited liability “protection” to a provider of an interactive computer service (such as an online platform) that engages in “ `Good Samaritan’ blocking” of harmful content…”

Trump triggered by Twitter and begins battling in earnest.

Ever since Twitter began displaying “Caution Windows” about his so-called misinformation, Trump became triggered!

Considered by many, the true beginning of Trump’s battle against social media censorship is a plea from the White House to conservatives to send him examples of social media conservative censorship.

Example of Trump Tweet with a warning from Twitter

Twitter decides that President Trump is “glorifying” violence when he is informing us of reality. Claiming “hate” speech, but is it? Is it time for him to also post on conservative-friendly social media sites?

In case the warning readers of Trump’s tweet received are too small and so difficult to read, here is what it says:

This tweet violates the Twitter rules about “glorifying” violence. However, Twitter has determined that it may be in the public interest for the tweet to remain accessible.

Twitter advice to users that Trump is guilty of “glorifying” violence.

They do not have the right to determine what violates our First Amendment! And so, my argument has nothing to do with Trump being the president, but instead rather is it constitutional.

Move Your Political Energy to Conservative Friendly Sites

Conservatives, move your online world to where you won’t get banned or censored!

After all, the management and staff at our big social media and search sites think conservative free speech is dangerous. So, move your political work to other, more conservative-friendly sites and avoid the hassle.

So fast! They are busting at the seams with traffic! And so, it appears conservatives have finally found a counter against censorship on social media sites.

For a group that firmly believes in free markets, why conservatives took so long to build and grow their social media and search sites is a mystery.

Censorship against imminent violence yes! Hate Speech no!

The giants of big tech, social media, and mainstream media invented the “hate speech” definitions to “slice and dice” our 1st Amendment. When the only banned speech is “imminent violence.”

While “hate speech” forbids words that hurt the feelings of selected persecuted groups, their censorship is unconstitutional.

Wikipedia on Hate Speech

Maddening that Wikipedia even lists the newly created categories of “hate speech,” and so, helps trample our 1st Amendment. In other words, Wikipedia and its editors have a strong left-wing bias.

President Obama asked if he believed in our Constitution. This communist responded, “It’s a good guide.”

Their left-wing contributors and editors think conservatives misled. Nowadays, I only link to Wikipedia for historical info, and even that often has a political slant.

What’s true for Wikipedia is similar to the beliefs of big tech. What their editors allow and their slant on hate speech and facts strongly leans to the left.

WhistleBlowers Unveil Politically-Driven Censorship!

Especially lately, many whistleblower employees tell of censorship that is politically-driven. Censorship is born in secrecy as they know they are violating our free speech rights.

After all, it’s a free country, as long as big tech remained governed by our 1st Amendment. And, since a new Trump Executive order, we got our right to sue for damages.

Section 230 was not intended to allow a handful of companies to grow into titans controlling vital avenues for our national discourse under the guise of promoting open forums for debate, and then to provide those behemoths blanket immunity when they use their power to censor content and silence viewpoints that they dislike. When an interactive computer service provider removes or restricts access to content and its actions do not meet the criteria of subparagraph (c)(2)(A), it is engaged in editorial conduct. It is the policy of the United States that such a provider should properly lose the limited liability shield of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) and be exposed to liability like any traditional editor and publisher that is not an online provider

Federal Register, President Trump, Executive Order, May 28th, 2020, Preventing online censorship


Patriots won’t be up against today’s massive media censorship much longer. Both conservatives and even our president are ready to ditch the offenders. A period of rebirth of free speech for conservative social media networks and publishers is near!

Granted that a coup is attempting to subjugate our Constitution and place us under a global government, but I am confident that patriots will rise and our political infrastructures will hold out.

By Wayne

I write about American political realities just beyond the horizon. Recognized as one of the best opinion writers by the "Conservatives for Journalism" for 2019, my posts represent the age-old values of conservatives. And so, I turn heads by rejecting the mainstream media and big tech takeover as the real media. Conservatives have always been and remain the center of the political spectrum.