Big Tech Really Needs to Answer Missouri AG’s Questions

Like most people today, I use a lot of social media. For my job, it’s pretty important to some degree or another. I also find it a good way to keep in touch with family and friends all across the country. 

But I don’t like the way Big Tech seems to pick winners and losers in politics. That’s especially true when it comes to guns.

Back in the day, it was something of a free-for-all, and I mean that in a good way. I bought and sold guns to folks in my community using various groups and it worked out well. I talked guns with a lot of other people.

These days, it’s not the same. Big Tech seems to have throttled a lot of that discussion, particularly with Second Amendment news, and they really need to answer for that.

And as Cam noted a couple of weeks ago, those questions are being asked.

This was also noted by our friends over at The Truth About Guns:

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey is issuing a Civil Investigative Demand (CID) to several top social media companies to determine whether they have engaged in unlawful business practices concerning firearms and ammunition.

At issue is whether Google, YouTube, Facebook, and Instagram, within Meta Platforms, Inc., have been suppressing lawful speech and commerce related to guns and ammo on their platforms.

“When Big Tech companies hold the power to control what Americans see, say, and believe, they hold the power to reshape the nation,” AG Bailey said in a news release announcing the investigation. “We will not allow Silicon Valley to rewrite the Bill of Rights from behind a firewall.”

…

According to AG Bailey, the demand was prompted by allegations that Google, YouTube, Facebook, and Instagram are obscuring or penalizing content related to firearms, accessories, hunting, personal protection, and related political viewpoints.

“Because Missouri law prohibits companies from misleading consumers about their services, our Office is demanding that Google and Meta provide relevant documents, policies, and communications,” Bailey said.

For what it’s worth, it seems that Second Amendment content over at my YouTube channel does worse than other topics I cover there, which is odd since I’m probably best known as a Second Amendment guy. Now, that could just be a case of people not being as interested in that kind of content or I’m not marketing it well as opposed to other kinds of content, but the difference is real.

And a lot of people feel like they have trouble seeing gun content as readily as other topics they have an interest in.

I know Facebook doesn’t show me the gun stuff nearly as much as scam pages trying to get me to bite on clickbait that I have no interest in looking at, so there’s probably something to this.

These companies really need to answer.

I get the argument that they’re private companies and can do what they want, but I don’t think they should be able to hide their intentions by pretending they don’t discriminate against various viewpoints. If they’re doing it, consumers have a right to know at a minimum.