Thread by @bansisharma

1, Regulating Big Tech

Frankly, this is not as complicated in principle as some make it sound. To the extent an industry is accorded special govt dispensations and protections, more rigorous govt regulations are warranted and applied as a matter of course. For example, banks.

https://twitter.com/neontaster/status/1413840553632993280

2. Google/YouTube, Facebook/Instagram and Twitter are fundamentally mass communications platforms with special legal protections to enable free flow of information. As such, it's wholly appropriate to mandate by law that they strictly comply with users' First Amendment rights.

3. Truth be told "they're just private companies" is a reductionist and ignorant formulation on the part of those who seem to know little about the nature of govt oversight of private enterprises. Industry-specific regulations are ubiquitous and the norm, not the exception.

4. Of course the specifics of any regulation must be debated rigorously. No regulation is better than bad regulation, so we must ensure any new regulation is good. But to assert that any new regulation of these platforms is somehow an affront to some pristine ideal is ridiculous.

5. Lobbyists, paid agents and spokespeople of Big Tech, often perched in high-falutin think-tanks might try to convince us that any regulation imposed on Big Tech will break some sacred bond of govt non-interference in private enterprise, but that would be deceptive.

6. Consumer protection has always been government's job and government intervening on behalf of the consumers to protect consumers' rights and welfare is a highly appropriate and legitimate role of government regulation.

As a matter of fact, that is its only purpose.

The End