[Take a listen to the statement in the video made at 30:00](https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/09/12/leaked-video-google-leaderships-dismayed-reaction-to-trump-election) minutes in. At the time this video was recorded - just after the 2016 election - **Google management was committed to a free and open internet**. What or who changed their stance? The reason social media platforms are political battlefields and social media owners are spending half their profits battling political ideologies is because large shareholders, Senators and Congressmen have been demanding it in full force since April of this year. That's not to say shadow banning wasn't going on before that. Despite the free market leaning of most people on the subject, there is already legislation controlling and granting privilege to "interactive computer services" - i.e. social media platforms and "information content providers" - i.e. bloggers, for example. Both are protected from litigation for the down-chain contributions that contain "offensive material". This relief was granted by government to "interactive computer services" and "information content providers" to actually encourage development of … wait for it … **CENSORSHIP TOOLS**. Here's a fragment of the Title 47 legal code: >(b)Policy It is the policy of the United States— (1)to promote the continued development of the Internet and other interactive computer services and other interactive media; (2)to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation; (3)to encourage the development of technologies which **maximize user control over what information is received by individuals**, families, and schools who use the Internet and other interactive computer services; (4)to remove disincentives for the development and utilization of **blocking and filtering technologies** that empower parents to restrict their children’s access to objectionable or inappropriate online material; and (5)to ensure **vigorous enforcement of Federal criminal laws** to deter and **punish trafficking in obscenity, stalking, and harassment** by means of computer. **47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material** https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 As you can see, items 3 to 5 are all about censorship tools, BUT the goal is to empower the **END-USER** and not the "interactive computer services", nor the "information content providers" So the government gave private stakeholders in internet development some immunity to incentivize them develop end-user censoring tools and law enforcement surveillance tools. As it turns out, the law governing the internet also rewards stakeholders **monetarily** for surveillance and censorship tools development. Here's another law code fragment: >(e)Cost recovery for Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act compliance (1)Petitions authorized A common carrier may petition the Commission to adjust charges, practices, classifications, and regulations to recover costs expended for making modifications to equipment, facilities, or services pursuant to the requirements of section 103 of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act [47 U.S.C. 1002]. (2)Commission authority The Commission may grant, with or without modification, a petition under paragraph (1) if the Commission determines that such costs are reasonable and that permitting recovery is consistent with the public interest. The Commission may, consistent with maintaining just and reasonable charges, practices, classifications, and regulations in connection with the provision of interstate or foreign communication by wire or radio by a common carrier, allow carriers to adjust such charges, practices, classifications, and regulations in order to carry out the purposes of this chapter. (3)Joint board The Commission shall convene a Federal-State joint board to recommend appropriate changes to part 36 of the Commission’s rules with respect to recovery of costs pursuant to charges, practices, classifications, and regulations under the jurisdiction of the Commission. **47 U.S. Code § 229 - Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act compliance** https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/229 You might read the law differently from me, but I see a lot of government regulation and financial kickbacks for compliance with government agendas to expand and develop surveillance and censorship over the internet. I read quotes from Zuckerberg back in July. He didn't want to ban or even censor Alex Jones. He was FORCED to and it's costing him and FB a lot of money. Surveillance and censorship is very expensive and complicated to implement. Following Facebook stock, I'd say extortion was what convinced Zuckerberg to obey orders. And now this revelation about Google's commitment to a free and open internet. Who's driving the censorship if NOT the management of social network platforms? I think the answer is above, in the law codes added to this post. **LEAKED VIDEO: Google Leadership’s Dismayed Reaction to Trump Election** Sep 12, 2018 | Allum Bokhari | Breitbart https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/09/12/leaked-video-google-leaderships-dismayed-reaction-to-trump-election/ --------------- **[Also published at Minds.com
Get your Internet Bill of Rights Protected Blog
+ Newsfeed + Video Channel + Messenger + Ethereum ERC-20 Utility Token Wallet
TODAY!](https://www.minds.com/register?referrer=justmeagain)**