The Progressive Crusade Against Big Tech
The Biden administration, led by aggressive regulators at the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), has declared war on Big Tech. High-profile antitrust lawsuits targeting industry giants like Google, Meta, Amazon, and Apple dominate headlines, promising to dismantle alleged monopolies and restore economic competition. To the casual observer, this might seem like a welcome effort to check the power of Silicon Valley. But for conservatives, this crusade misses the point entirely.
The progressive argument, championed by officials like FTC Chair Lina Khan, views corporate size as an inherent evil. Their strategy relies on a century-old antitrust framework designed for railroad barons and oil tycoons, applying it clumsily to the dynamic, fast-paced digital economy. They sue Google over its search and advertising dominance, Meta for its acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp, and Amazon for its marketplace practices. Their solution is always the same: empower federal bureaucrats to break up successful American companies and dictate business models from Washington.
This approach is not only economically questionable—threatening to stifle the very innovation that made these companies global leaders—but it also fundamentally misunderstands the primary threat Big Tech poses to a free society. The problem isn't that Google’s search engine is too efficient or that Amazon delivers packages too quickly. The real danger is the unchecked power these platforms wield over the flow of information and public discourse.
The Conservative Concern: An Ideological Monopoly
For years, conservatives have warned about the growing ideological monopoly in Silicon Valley. We have witnessed a consistent and troubling pattern of political bias, where right-of-center viewpoints are suppressed, fact-checked into oblivion, or outright censored. The most glaring example remains the coordinated de-platforming of a sitting U.S. President, Donald J. Trump, in 2021—an unprecedented act of political censorship by a handful of unelected tech executives.
The issue extends far beyond a single account. Conservative commentators, news outlets, and everyday citizens have faced shadow-banning, demonetization, and suspension for expressing views that challenge the progressive orthodoxy on everything from election integrity to COVID-19 policies. This isn’t about stopping illegal content; it's about controlling the acceptable range of political debate.
This is the monopoly that truly matters. While the FTC worries about market share percentages, Big Tech has cornered the market on speech itself. The Biden administration’s antitrust lawsuits do nothing to address this fundamental assault on First Amendment principles. Breaking Google into smaller pieces will not change the progressive ideology that animates its content moderation policies. Forcing Meta to spin off Instagram will not create a new platform dedicated to open dialogue. The administration is aiming its cannons at the wrong castle.
A Tale of Two Strategies: Trump vs. Biden
President Trump correctly identified the core of the problem. His administration focused not on unwieldy antitrust cases but on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. This controversial provision grants tech platforms a dual shield: they are not liable for what users post, yet they are also protected for their “good faith” decisions to remove content they deem objectionable.
Over time, this shield has been abused, allowing platforms to act as publishers—curating and censoring content—without any of the legal responsibilities that come with it. President Trump’s push to reform or repeal Section 230 was a direct attempt to hold these companies accountable for their biased moderation. It was a strategy aimed at protecting speech, not just manipulating markets.
In contrast, the Biden administration's approach empowers the very administrative state that conservatives distrust. It seeks to replace the judgment of Silicon Valley executives with the judgment of Washington regulators, trading one set of central planners for another. This big-government solution risks weakening America’s most competitive companies, making them vulnerable to foreign rivals, particularly from China, while leaving the censorship machine intact.
The Real Solution: Competition and Free Speech
The most effective check on power is not regulation, but competition. The conservative solution to Big Tech overreach is to foster an environment where new platforms can rise and challenge the incumbents. We are already seeing this happen, thanks to innovators who value free expression.
Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter, now X, stands as the most significant counter-move against the censorship industrial complex. Musk has dismantled much of the platform’s previous moderation apparatus, restoring banned accounts and championing X as a global town square where all legal speech is welcome. Similarly, platforms like Rumble and President Trump's Truth Social have emerged to provide alternatives for users tired of Silicon Valley’s political agenda.
This is the American way. Instead of asking the government to fix a problem it is ill-equipped to solve, entrepreneurs are building better alternatives. The proper role for government is to get out of the way of these competitors and ensure that foundational rights are protected. This means reforming Section 230 to clarify that platforms engaging in politically motivated censorship cannot hide behind a liability shield meant for neutral forums.
The Biden administration’s antitrust war is a distraction. It is a progressive power grab masquerading as consumer protection. While regulators are busy drowning our tech champions in legal paperwork, the real problem of political censorship continues unabated. Conservatives must remain focused on the true fight: the one for free speech and an open internet, where competition, not government control, is the ultimate arbiter of success.
