Censorship; why do some conservatives not care?

The Democrat party has always been the party of censorship.  For example the reason that the Rush Limbaugh show took off when it did was that an FCC regulation which effectively censored the radio waves was repealed.

The FCC "Fairness Doctrine" required radio stations to present alternative viewpoints. So if a conservative radio commentator had a listening audience of millions but a leftists commentator had 2 listeners the station had to keep the leftists on the air.  Hence the effect of the doctrine was to censor conservative voices since historically, and as we see today, conservative radio hosts can bring in huge audiences and leftists can't.  No radio station would want to have to carry a losing show so instead they generally eschewed any political commentary.

Interestingly even though the TV networks, which are also licensed by the government to use public airwaves, were consistently pro-Democrat there was no FCC "Fairness Doctrine" applied to them.

Fortunately for free speech Reagan's FCC stopped enforcing this practice.

Today Democrats are doing the same thing by supporting censorship of conservative voices on social media.

One would think that conservatives would be fighting tooth and nail to end not only the censorship on social media but the fact that the publicly licensed TV networks are nothing more than Democrat propagandists.

Yet we hear "conservative" voices saying we can't do anything; in fact that to do anything would be against our principles.

For example when Trump said that the systematic media bias should be investigated because it amounts to massive in kind campaign contributions those "conservatives" lashed out at him.  It's as though they don't want to win and hide behind "principles" to conceal that.

In some sense those "conservatives" are harking back to the "conservative" stance on monopolies back in the early 20th century; they should be legal.

After all with ABC, CBS, and NBC all colluding to present a dishonest leftists view of the world they are nothing more than an informational monopoly on public airwaves just as Standard Oil was an oil monopoly.

If the people object to economic monopolies because they drive up prices why can't the people object to informational monopolies which earn huge amounts of money using public airwaves while deliberately working to hide the truth from the people?

Similarly contrary to what those "conservatives" say Twitter,Google, YouTube, and Facebook are monopolies which will not be unseated through the normal give and take of a free economy since the cost of entry is so high.  Hence the fact that those entities are engaging in a war on conservatives is not ok just because they're private companies anymore than it would have been ok back when AT&T had a monopoly on phone service for them to have denied service to individuals based on their political beliefs.

Dealing with the massive bias on the part of the networks is a thorny issue though revoking the license of networks which consistently show blatant bias and opening up that part of the spectrum for competitive bids might work.

Fixing the social media problem is easier.  Currently all the social media giants are protected by law from lawsuits because they are supposedly neutral platforms that don't control their content.  Yet by censoring only conservative voices it's clear that those companies are no longer neutral platforms but publishers.  Hence they have their cake and eat it too; they are immune to lawsuits and they control their content.

Changing that would change the whole social media landscape.  If Twitter, FB, et al could all be sued for every libelous post there would be a huge financial incentive for those companies to stop censoring for any reason other than criminal activity so that they could reclaim the status of neutral platforms.

We often think that libel suits are dead on arrival because due to a left wing activist Supreme Court decision it's nearly impossible to win such a suit when a public figure is involved.  However the random Jew on FB who is called a Nazi by some leftist is not a public figure and hence has a much higher chance of winning a libel suit against Twitter--especially since the jury would see Twitter as a set of deep pockets with infinite money.

This approach would not censor anything nor would it put the government in charge of what can and can't be said on social media but it would force the Silicon Valley giants to pay for their attacks on Americans they don't like.

If we stand by and let the left control what the people know then we'll end up like North Korea with the people believing outlandish lies--like Trump colluded with Russia, Democrats aren't racists, and illegal immigration is a good thing-- and therefore supporting a government which is in reality oppressing them.