Also weird that he uses the term 'dilemma' and instead of coming up with an argument referencing the original definition of 'dilemma' he comes up with a trite and unoriginal argument referencing its newer vague definition.
The true dilemma for conservatives is which of two horns do we choose:
1) Support free enterprise and allow corporations like Google and Facebook to suppress free speech, or
2) Do we find some way to restrict Google and Facebook in order to force them to treat all non-violent content (regardless of political or religious association) equally.
There are those conservatives who believe that Google and Facebook have become monopolies and can be regulated like utility companies. Other conservatives disagree, and believe that the only solution is boycotts and attempts to stand up conservative alternatives.
That is a true dilemma worth discussing.
It is a dilemma, you hit it spot on.
As a conservative, I am loathe to give the government any reason to intervene on nearly anything having to do with speech (other than ensuring one is free to speak)
I don’t want them interpreting what is right and what is wrong. I just want the government to allow me to say what I wish and exert its power on those who wish to silence me.
If we start having the government decide, on the basis of parsed (by the government) expression, when to engage the force of government and when not to, I think that will be the end of us as a Republic.
In the case of Facebook, I find myself in the position of advocating their heinous approach to speech simply because I find the alternative, having the government making decisions on it, even worse.
But I am also open to the concept that there are times a government remedy is in order. Not sure this is one of them, but I suspect I could be convinced.
It ALL looks like a slippery slope to me, damnit.