The George H.W. Bush Foundation for U.S.-China Relations agreed to accept $5 million from a group with ties to the Chinese Communist Party and China's international propaganda efforts, according to a report Saturday.
Why is it that political figures seem to form" foundations" and refuse to go off into the day and live out their lives? This seems to be a recurring theme eh?
Never mind the current interference from foreign powers.
Then we have Twitter, which has now had its CEO assert that access is a "human right". This, after they banhammered a Nigerian politician (who apparently does not have said right) and the Nigerian government in return banhammered Twitter entirely. Isn't it funny how "rights" are selectively applied based on who it is? A thing that is a right cannot be denied by someone else, especially through extrajudicial process eh? What 'ya you say about that, Jack?
Oh, and said "rights" are not necessarily equal either. Twitter bans search, they hide replies behind "show more" buttons selectively, depending on who you are and what you say and more. In other words there is no "right" respected by Twitter at all, just as there is not by Communist China. Rather everything in these people's mind is a privilege for them to assign as they deem fit.
If Jack asserts that access to a free and open Internet is a right then he and his firm have no authority to censor anyone's speech. Ever. Period. Only a court has the authority to do that, after due process of law, and only by throwing the offending party in jail. Where is that line when does said "right" exist? Arguably when you become a material component of the public square on a general basis, as Twitter and Facebook and a handful of others have.
Thus this must apply to Facebook, Youtube, Google generally (including their ad program) web hosting firms domain registrars and others. Delineating when you cross that threshold is not all that hard; at the point you act in collusion or common purpose as all of these firms have you enter the room of your own free volition.
But of course Jack doesn't see it that way, nor do people on either side of the aisle. The right claims "free enterprise" trumps free speech, even when monopolies come about and deliberately organize, which I remind you has been illegal for more than 100 years (15 USC Chapter 1) while the left claims muh raciss any time someone says something they don't like.
How do we address any of this productively?
Can we legitimately ban Communist speech? Not if you respect the Constitution. The First Amendment doesn't say except for Communists. But unfortunately what we won't do is apply the existing body of law to those who collude. Specifically, the so-called "Trusted News Initiative" and the now-documented interplay of Facebook and others with Fauci is a direct assault on said Constitution and First Amendment, which as soon as it touched a government agency entered the realm of violating the Constitution itself along with 15 USC Chapter 1 which fortunately has an existing criminal remedy: PRISON.
Throw Zuck and Jack into PYITA prison and watch how fast all this BS dissolves. They have personally documented their own violations of 15 USC Chapter 1, and the interplay of their organizations and Fauci's NIH when it comes to Covid implicates the First Amendment directly on top of it, as The Federal Government has no right to direct or coordinate censorship. Indeed such is blatantly unconstitutional, never mind when undertaken in collusion felonious.
We need no new laws; the existing ones work just fine, and no, there is no shield found in Section 230 either.