We can clean up partisan bias on the internet without government controlling the content

Desperate to preserve the censorship of the Internet which Google, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube et al are implementing today the #FakeNews media is presenting the only two options as either allowing those leftist leaning companies to control content--sort of like the phone companies cutting off your phone service if you say things they don't like--or have the government mandate what can and can't be posted.

Like the infamous "Heads I win tails you lose" mantra both options end up with leftists, for we know the unelected unaccountable government bureaucrats who would police the internet under option 2 are almost all leftists, censoring speech they don't like.

The real solution is much simpler and easier to implement.

By censoring some non-criminal content the Silicon Valley technocrats have made their systems into publishers not content neutral platforms. A publisher controls their content and a platform, other than in cases of criminal activity--say child porn and terrorist recruitment--, does not.

For example the NYT is a publisher and if it were to print content that was clearly libelous they can be sued. On the other hand if someone uses their AT&T based cellphone to say something slanderous they can't be sued because AT&T exercises no control over what is said on their phones.

The obvious solution then is to treat the big internet sites as publishers; allow them to be sued if they publish libelous content.

People's first objection tends to be that since the Supreme Court completely altered our libel laws it's nearly impossible for anyone to win a libel lawsuit.  Which is, fortunately for us, only partly true.

The Supreme Court made it nearly impossible for a public figure to win a libel suit but private citizens who are lied about have a much easier time winning.

If the NYT lies about Trump the Courts say it's ok.  But if the NYT were to publish lies about some random citizen--say they do a hit piece on a garage owner who is supposedly a mob hit man but who turns out to be completely innocent and the NYT had no remotely credible evidence for their claim--it's much easier for that private citizen to win.

If Twitter for example could be sued every time some intolerant left winger lied not about public figures like Tucker Carlson or Ted Cruz but about some random housewife from Cleveland they would be facing a huge legal liability.

So huge that their stock holders would probably insist that Twitter go back to being content neutral--except for criminal activities like child porn and terrorist recruiting.

At some point the amount of money the glitterati would be willing to lose their public companies in order to push their agenda would become more than the investment managers who own most of their stock would be willing to lose and changes would be forced into being.

Of course if the government were to intervene it could do so without becoming a censor.  A simple law saying that internet platforms have to conform to the 1st Amendment or face fines and criminal penalties would create a fairly clean situation; to be found to be in violation of the law all that would have to be proven is that the platform censored content that isn't illegal--no matter how hateful or offensive it is.

Don't buy the Big Lie that either the tech companies or the government have to control the content of the internet.