Its surprising how much you can accomplish if you don't care who gets the credit
I am a BIG fan of Dennis Prager (not so much Hugh Hewitt, although they are often found together). I am an EVEN BIGGER fan of the 5-minute videos produced by Prager University. In fact, if I were a schoolteacher, teaching from the 7th grade up, I would start every day with a PragerU video and have a class discussion about it.
Essentially, it’s Conservatives and the few young adults with open minds that tend to enjoy and share the PragerU videos. They are popular because they address national and international topics, mostly politically-incorrect issues in open, logical and fact-filled ways that usually contradict positions held by the Left. (If you have not heard or seen a PragerU video try this link: https://www.prageru.com/5-minute-videos/. You can even subscribe to get them delivered to your email, along with solicitations to support PragerU.)
Unfortunately, YouTube and Google have effectively CENSORED the PragerU videos by filtering them to the bottom or completely out of general search inquiry results and/or simply refusing to include them in results due to their “hate speech” content (as YouTube and Google defines them). Spotify and Twitter have both refused to allow PragerU from buying advertising on their services.
As a result of these politically motivated decisions to black-list PragerU from “publishing” (or otherwise reaching the People), the top Corporation's platforms in the social intercourse business, namely Google, YouTube, Twitter, Spotify, et al, are violating the law. PragerU has elected to use this Country’s woefully unpredictable Judicial System, to essentially impose 1st Amendment, “Freedom of Speech” protections in PragerU’s behalf. After all, THEY have a monopoly!
It just ain’t fair! Someone should make them give PragerU the same opportunities that they give to Daily Kos, Mother Jones, Salon Politics, and the like. It’s time that the government took notice of this inequality and took action to correct it! Don’cha think?
Hmmmm… Wait just a minute. What if we made a couple of changes to this situation, just to simplify? Take a look at it from THIS hypothetical scenario:
What if Google (just to use a name) actually baked wedding cakes, and PragerU (let’s say they are a couple of gay men) walks into the Google Bakery and DEMAND that this NON-government “bakery” put two naked men in a compromising position atop their three-tiered wedding cake. In response, the baker (Google) says, politely, “No. Sorry, we can't do that. It is just not consistent with our beliefs, our principles, or our policies. But look, there's another bakery (Bing, Yahoo, Ask.com, or even DuckDuckGo) that will do it for you.”
But the gay guys (PragerU) say, “No Way, buddy (to Google)! I only want YOU to make it! I’m gonna sue!”
As a Conservative, how would you prefer this hypothetical disagreement to go?
Of course, we would want it to be ruled in favor of the baker, in this case, Google.
This is where there is a distinction between the two scenarios (facts and fiction), but there is actually no difference
The REAL circumstances are no different than my hypothetical. Google is a private company and therefore permitted its own principles and policies as long as they are exercised equally and without predetermined biases. That doesn't mean they have to accept PragerU submittals as long as they also do not accept any Conservative-perspective videos from other Conservative submitters. The same would be true of YouTube, Twitter, Spotify, and the rest. As long as they are NOT an agency of the government or a GFO company, the government has no authority over their policies, principles, or even the beliefs of the company’s executive management. They are “free” to determine their own rules or criteria for selecting (or deselecting) the appearance of PragerU videos on their “published” social media platforms. They should be able to pick the videos they think will attract as many views as possible, without driving the existing viewers away. It is "viewer-hits" that draw Google's paying customers, the advertisers who buy exposure to us, the public consumers, in the form of advertising. But you know that, right? (We don't need to talk about their profits from privacy invasion or data mining sold to God knows whom, OK?)
Of course, our normally out-of-control government noted for doing exactly the wrong things for both the wrong and right reasons could jump in using the very subjective elements of anti-trust laws. For example:
Their history, in cases the size of this, has been remarkably UN-remarkable in terms of final impact. (I am sure that many, many lawyers and a few political officials somehow found remarkable sums of money freshly deposited into their retirement accounts, aren't you?) Case in point:
When the government broke up AA&T, we went from a solitary Nationwide monopoly to 7 Regional monopolies… right?
And then, there was that “sue-age” to break up Micro-Soft’s stranglehold on IBM based PC Operating Systems. Actually, the government won both the case, and the appeal, but the penalties and required changes that we demanded by the government did very little to benefit the consumer's side of the market. I guess since then, Linux has penetrated the monopoly to a relatively small degree. But there is still no equal to Bill Gates' wealth building "racket."
So what do you think the solution should be?
I’m sure that whatever we find, it will have its own rules, policies, procedures, and biases, but if we agree with them, no big deal.
It’s just that I think that bringing the government into the issue to resolve it to OUR benefit is just as egregious an interference in the marketplace as is the decision by these companies to insult, deny service, and, thereby, eliminate a very significant portion of their potential customers.
Some will call it non-realistic purism, or something, but I really believe that if “they” are acting unfairly with devious, unethical practices, WE can defeat them with a better, more reliable (and may I conscript one of their favorite phrases?), and some “Fair to all” products or services. Conservatives believe that fair markets allow and encourage companies to provide trusted products and services at reasonable prices. And that the companies that break that product trust and reasonable pricing conventions will, eventually, lose their share. They will either comply with successful standards or wither away.
When we “artificially” force those changes, I’m afraid that not too far into the future they can be reversed – “artificially.” Is our "Conservatism" flexible or adaptable enough to be contradictive to "Conservatism" when we choose it to be?
As Thomas Jefferson has been quoted, “I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them but to inform their discretion.”
Do we need to know more? Are we not aware that some companies are trying to mold an opinion for our Nation that is contrary to ours? Our government is based on The People being Informed, not jumping in and out of control via our dubious, publically influenced judicial system. Like Jefferson do we trust our fellows? We must not stand by and allow them to be duped, nor should we encourage them to take extraordinary action. How about we stand up to our duty of keeping them informed?