"The bigger your market, Montag, the less you handle controversy, remember that! All the minor minor minorities with their navels to be kept clean. Authors, full of evil thoughts, lock up your typewriters. They did. Magazines became a nice blend of vanilla tapioca. Books, so the damned snobbish critics said, were dishwater. No wonder books stopped selling, the critics said. But the public, knowing what it wanted, spinning happily, let the comic- books survive. And the three-dimensional sex-magazines, of course. There you have it, Montag. It didn't come from the Government down. There was no dictum, no declaration, no censorship, to start with, no! Technology, mass exploitation, and minority pressure carried the trick, thank God. Today, thanks to them, you can stay happy all the time, you are allowed to read comics, the good old confessions, or trade journals."
While that's a nice quote and all, you are responding to someone talking about the story 1984 by George Orwell. Whereas your quote is from Farenheiht 451 by Ray Bradbury.
I'm not sure if you've actually ready the story or you just like the quote, but it's actually not about government censorship, it's about TV replacing books. Even a short Google search will help you out there.
Whichever one of the two is the biggest bully doesn't matter, in reality they can both act like Big Brother. I think CS Lewis' N.I.C.E from That Hideous Strength is more true to life than 1984.
They censored the president under phony pretenses. They've censored Senator Hawley's book. They censored other government officials from even uttering the name "Eric Ciaramella", even though he was certainly not a whistleblower and even if so, not legally entitled to such a level of privacy.
But to be more accurate, they're censoring non-liberals. This is evidenced by the fact that actual dictatorial regimes with many many violent deaths on their hands are allowed access to those avenues of communication without a fraction of the editorial control than was the President of the USA.
Other politicians, who have the "D" by their name (the government equivalent of a blue checkmark apparently) are allowed to spread hoaxes and lies for years and call for harassment and violence towards their political enemies, and big tech allows it to stand. Because they agree with it.
One only need to see the Googlers crying in the hallways after Hillary's defeat in 2016 to know why. They got their feelings hurt and vowed to never let it happen again, by any means necessary. And they are people with significant means to control what you may or may not say in the digital public square, if they don't simply decide to unperson you entirely.
The neoliberal Democrats and Silicon Valley seem to be in kind of in a lovers-gone-haters relationship though, it’s more complicated than what you’re suggesting. They were really loving each other in the Obama years, remember when social media was hailed in liberal media as a positive force for democracy (alluding to the various Spring revolutions)? I mean, Obama’s campaign used private Facebook data no less than Trump did, and liberal media even spun that as a good thing at that time! The problem is once that same technology was soon to be used against the neoliberals from both left/right wing populism (Occupy Wall Street and Bernie for the left, Trumpism for the right), that’s when their relationship got shakened quite a bit and now we’re up to the point where the Dems are filing antitrust regulations against Google. The neoliberals got a bit afraid that the new technocrats (Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc) would accumulate enough power to do whatever they want (against their interests, although so far big tech's interests just seemed to be about making as much money as possible with disregard for anything else), so liberal media began spewing out one of the most blatantly aggressive narratives that social media was the sole fault in the rise of Trumpism (well, only partially so, the more substantial reason has to do with US neoliberal policies leading to deindustrialization, along with the greater urban/rural inequality divide). I mean, SV companies have their faults, but it’s not just them responsible for this whole mess. Anyways, the mainstream Dems finally got the big social media companies to censor as they please, but that’s only after the populist left/right started to look for decentralized or encrypted alternatives, albeit slowly (Telegram/Signal/Mastodon/Pleroma/Lemmy/etc).
Again, private companies really need to remain smaller. The size of the companies are completely out of control. So do they have too much control? Of course.
With that said, they are only doing what they know the masses want. So in a way, they're just doing the people's bidding. If Google thought the majority wanted Parler and hate speech, they'd certainly have kept it up.
When I worked at Facebook, the wide-audience internal feeds were kind of dominated by very um.. progressive, enthusiastic messaging that I’d even call activism. And it was considered cool to participate and be in that.. well, ‘clique’ may not be exactly the word but it’s close.
I actually did think it was cool! However, if there were any right wing folks there, naturally they kept quiet.
Also, there are a huge number of conservatives and moderates using Facebook. The main point I’m trying to make is that it is misguided to believe that these companies do not have their very own conscience / worldview / quite strongly held political values.
Facebook literally tweaked algorithms to advantage right conservative websites. If the planned change would disadvantage them, the change was modified until they ended up on top.
While true, fsflover has not made any statements and is only posting questions. He's "JAQing off" [0], so to speak. It's a hallmark of bad faith arguing.
I honestly don't understand why the 1984 comparison is not appropriate here, because the book is about the oppression. I don't know how it's for you guys (that's why I asked), but for me it does not matter who oppresses me, government or corporations.
Hell. Even Twilio (a common carrier) banned Parler. AFAICT Parler wasn't using Twilio to forward harassing messages. It used it for 2FA. And I'm sure they'll get away with it. It's just nuts.
Twilio said the Parler platform was in violation of the acceptable use policy (not just the use of Twilio services), and was told by Parler that they had already disabled Twilio.
A common carrier can't ban you from using their services because they happen to not like aspects of your business. Parler was sending 2fa codes with twilio. They were not using twilio sms as an interface to parler's user generated content.
For a company who knew that they were bound to fall foul of the ideological stances of their providers, they should have planned for such an event.
The most likely reason for that is that the companies owners were fake people who wanted to profile a particular segment of the society, or they were poorly advised by the IT guys.
When your cellular connection becomes an app...
When your contact list is removed or hidden...
When your text app is locked...
When your ISP kills your account...
When your webhost provider deletes your site and/or content...
When they selectively track your location and post it to political groups they support...
When your car GPS stops navigating.
When your car won't start to support a suggested lockdown they support...
When your cable channel drops all "opposing" news media...
How much of Orwell's 1984 do you want?