Network neutrality is a top-down, government-centric Internet policy for which the Left has pushed for more than a decade.
But for Internet Service Providers (ISPs)—Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, Charter, etc. And only ISPs. Not for Big Tech companies such as Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Amazon.
Net Neutrality mandates ISPs neutrally deliver every bit of data they handle. They can show no preference for any data.
Big Tech companies are nigh all Leftist. So of course, Google, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, and more have all long publicly professed their desire to see government regulate ISPs in net neutrality’s heavy-handed fashion.
Because why not? It doesn’t apply to them.
Oh, and Big Tech wants net neutrality for ISPs because it is a huge government crony gift to Big Tech.
Net neutrality outlaws ISPs from charging Big Tech for the massive amounts of bandwidth they use. So you and I pay dramatically more for Internet access, as a giant subsidy to Big Tech.
This, by the way, is what Big Tech is trying to get away with in privacy legislation. They are pushing for law that only regulates ISPs’ very minimal use of data.
Meanwhile, many Big Tech companies’ entire business model is based on collecting our data and selling access to it. Google (Market Cap: $979 billion) and Facebook (Market Cap: $653 billion) got that incredibly huge just by selling our data.
The privacy law Big Tech seeks—and is in some cases is getting—doesn’t apply to them.
Are these Big Tech companies any less hypocritical when it comes to neutrally delivering our data? Heavens no.
Big Tech constantly warps what we see. And they do so for commercial—and political—reasons.
Last week we were mass-fed another round of outrage by Big Media:
AT&T Violates Net Neutrality Principles With HBO Max
AT&T Ignores Net Neutrality: HBO Max Won’t Hit Data Caps but Competing Streamers Will
Senators Criticize AT&T for Not Counting HBO Max Toward Data Caps
AT&T owns HBO Max. So AT&T is offering its customers a break on HBO Max, hoping to get more customers for HBO Max.
AT&T is honest and forthright about their preference for their other service. It’s right there in their data cap exemption.
Oh, and of course this is something companies in every economic sector on Earth do.
Would anyone be shocked to discover Virgin Airlines offering discounts on Virgin Hotels? Should we be angry? Should the government ban them from doing it?
Of course not.
Net neutrality-pushing Google does exactly what AT&T is doing, only much less honestly and forthrightly.
Google dominates Web searches in the United States. Fully 91.54% of U.S. Web searches are Google searches.
And Google secretly, surreptitiously warps your search results.
What you get is not a pristine, unfiltered look at what’s happening on the Internet. What you get is what Google wants you to see.
How very non-net neutral of them.
Google warps your search results for commercial reasons.
Google Manipulates Search Results, According to Study:
“The study presents evidence that the search giant sets out to hamper competitors and limit consumers’ options….
“‘The main surprising and shocking realization is that Google is not presenting its best product. In fact, it’s presenting a version of the product that’s degraded and intentionally worse for consumers.’”
“The paper was authored by Tim Wu.”
Tim Wu is the guy who created the concept of Net Neutrality. And Wu was, with Google, among the leading pushers of it upon ISPs.
And Google warps your search results for political reasons.
We have many allegedly center-right defenders of Big Tech, claiming Big Tech bias against conservatives has not yet been proven. They are either really unintelligent or profoundly corrupt.
“One aspect of the report features undercover footage of longtime Google employee and Head of Responsible Innovation, Jen Gennai, saying Google has been working diligently to ‘prevent’ the results of the 2016 election from repeating in 2020, meaning they are actively engaging in election meddling and working to elect someone from the Democratic Party….
“Jen Gennai, the Google executive caught on video bragging that ‘Congress can pressure us but we’re not changing,’ panicked, deleted her Twitter account and made her Instagram ‘private.’
“Gaurav Gite, the Google engineer revealing the tech giant’s actions to manipulate its algorithms based on its own definition of ‘fairness,’ has deleted his Facebook page….
“The exposé was so damaging that Google-YouTube deleted Project Veritas’ video exposing the tech giant’s electioneering.”
Nothing says “We’re not censoring” like Big Tech censoring their exposers and even themselves.
And speaking of a complete lack of self-awareness….
Twitter Rejects Ad Campaign for Net Neutrality Tweet:
“Randolph May said Twitter rejected his effort to promote a tweet (below) associated with his FSF Perspective: ‘Don’t Regulate the Internet as a Public Utility.’
“‘I decided to spend $50 to promote the tweet further—something I’ve only done 2-3 times in 10 years…. [T]o my surprise, Twitter rejected it as “political.”
“‘This is the same Twitter … which proclaims vociferously it favors “net neutrality.” I guess the neutrality doesn’t apply to tweets opposing its net neutrality position!’
“According to Twitter’s ad policy, it ‘prohibits the promotion of political content,’ which includes ads that contain ‘advocacy for or against regulation.’”
Never mind the fact Twitter has spent more than a dozen years shoving net neutrality down our throats.
Twitter Joins Pro-Net Neutrality ‘Day of Action’
And from their own mouths:
Why Twitter Faves #NetNeutrality
Of course, Twitter will continue to do this….
‘Shadow Banning’: How Twitter Secretly Censors Conservatives Without Them Even Knowing It:
“Through shadow banning, ‘you have ultimate control,’ said Abhinav Vadrevu, former Twitter software engineer.
“‘The idea of a shadow ban is that you ban someone but they don’t know they’ve been banned, because they keep posting but no one sees their content. So, they just think that no one is engaging with their content, when, in reality, no one is seeing it.
“‘At the end of the day, no one else interacts,” continues Vadrevu. “No one else sees what you’re doing. So, all that data is just thrown away.’
“Conrado Miranda, a former Twitter engineer, says shadow banning is happening at Twitter, acknowledging that the procedure is often used to silence conservatives or Trump supporters.
“Vadrevu said, ‘It’s risky though.’ Why? ‘Because people will figure that sh*t out, and be like … you know, it’s a lot of bad press if, like, people figure out like you’re shadow banning them. It’s like, unethical in some way.’”
Unethical in some way? It is unethical in every conceivable way.
It’s bad enough when Twitter fully bans conservatives. They don’t make an announcement they’ve banned another conservative—you just one day realize you haven’t see X or Y Tweeting in a while. But at least Twitter is not completely hiding their bias.
Twitter shadow banning conservatives lets Twitter pretend to be net neutral but not actually be neutral.
That’s called lying.
‘Twitter Is Part of the Problem’: FCC Chairman Lambastes Company as Net-Neutrality Debate Draws Heat:
“Ajit Pai, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, blasted Twitter on Tuesday for what he said was a push to ‘discriminate’ against conservatives, during an aggressive defense of his agency’s plan to repeal net neutrality rules….
“‘When it comes to a free and open Internet, Twitter is part of the problem,’ Pai said. ‘The company has a viewpoint and uses that viewpoint to discriminate.’”
What Big Tech is doing is a profound corruption of our political process.
Remember all the crap we’ve been fed about how important it is to prevent Russia from again interfering in our elections?
Here’s the reality:
Russia Influenced 2016 U.S. Election With $100,000 Worth of Ads, According to Facebook
Wow, $100,000. In an election where $2 billion was spent.
That’s nothing. Because math.
Meanwhile, web-search-dominating Google is “working diligently to ‘prevent’ the results of the 2016 election from repeating in 2020.” And Twitter is shadow-banning conservatives.
We have a huge election interference problem. But it ain’t Russia. It’s Big Tech.
