Esther Dyson used to hold a high level, invitation-only conference each year in Scottsdale, AZ called PC Forum. The dates were always carved in stone on our calendar. The conference was acquired, but one of the last ones under Dyson’s auspices was at the dawn of the Age of Social, and the theme was Users in Charge. That was over a decade ago, and truth be told, Dyson is and always has been something of an optimist.

This past week, both Twitter and Facebook came under fire for censoring a NY Post article that they (baselessly) claimed was based on ‘hacked material.’

Once again, Senate to Subpoena Twitter CEO Over Blocking of Disputed Biden Articles, the Wall Street Journal (et al) reported.

We’ve read this book before and well we know that nothing ever comes from these inquiries. The tech cartel – including Dorsey himself – has lied to Congress before, while under oath, without repercussions, so what’s to say that it’ll be different this time around? And why is it that even at this juncture, the rules don’t seem to apply to them?

In 1996, Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act was passed in order “to prevent internet companies from being treated as publishers and was done in part to allow the (then fledgling) internet to flourish,” said the New York Post, and ‘not be held liable for the content their users post, and how they moderate it.’

How many times have we come to learn since those early days of online that those companies would take that exception and wield it like a cudgel? Again, without repercussions, perhaps because of some misguided notion that they were ‘too big to fail.’ And thus it was more difficult for potential competitors to compete and/or enter the fray in any substantive way.

In the early days, the internet was often called and compared to the wild, wild west, and in hindsight, how appropriate the term: the power seems to have gravitated in one direction – west   – to the Silicon Valley seemingly anointed.

This is not about politics and even beyond censorship. At this juncture, it’s beyond both: it’s about manipulation and control, and well we remember or if not, let us remind you that not too long ago, Facebook manipulated users’ moods in secret experiment (Facebook can use algorithm to make users happy or sad and even scientist that edited the study said she was ‘creeped out’ by it). Like many Silicon Valley ‘experiments,’ Uber’s ‘God View’ being a case in point, rather than these studies or experiments being discarded, they are often merely repurposed.

Esther Dyson was prescient when she dubbed the Age of Social ‘Users in Charge.’ The tech/Social Media cartel has taken our information, our privacy – even our freedom to express our opinions if they’re not in line with their own. Then again, since we are after all the ‘product,’ that would, by definition, make them the ‘users.’ A very fitting term, all things being equal.

We will also remind you that under the current administration, Net Neutrality was reversed, an action which the tech cartel warned  would choke that so-called ‘last mile,’ and that what consumers would be able to see or access would be determined by the highest bidder and so much for the free and open internet. Contrary to popular misconception and the hue and cry that occurred at the time, that didn’t happen. Rather, the tech cartel’s FAANG stocks, profits and power over the internet soared under Net Neutrality, and note to self, Companies that do everything from manufacturing phones to operating social-media platforms now account for nearly 40% of the S&P 500, so it seems that, for the cartel, the hits just keep on coming.

At the end of the day, the last mile is all about who controls the content that people are readily able to access, and we clearly know the answer to that.

Time to hit back.

The debate has been raging over whether or not social media needs to be regulated. The truth is, the regulations are already in place. Time to revoke their get out of jail free card. They have never stopped in their efforts to put Net Neutrality regulations back in place, but truth be told, it seems that they already control that most critical last mile – the ability for people to freely express views, even if they may not be in lockstep with those of the players who control the various platforms.

It’s high time that their Section 230 cover is removed. They’re no longer fledgling companies and at what point do we replace the concept of ‘too big to fail’ with what they have become: ‘too big to rein in?’

Facebook has been putting somewhat specious warning labels on content with which the leadership does not agree. YouTube/Google has been demonetizing or eliminating channels belonging to broadcasters with large viewerships, whose viewpoints are not in lockstep with their own. Twitter failed at their attempts at ‘intended impartiality,’ which was Dorsey’s mea culpa for the platform’s gaffe when he faced Congress back 2018.  Yet here we are again and if you think that an incident like what happened with the Post piece won’t happen again or that, like Twitter, the other platforms will, with their Section 230 protection firmly in place, allow for a free and open ‘last mile,’ once again, you don’t know Jack.

Onward and forward.