Twitter intensifies attack on conservatives by forbidding political ads

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey announced yesterday that the platform will no longer accept and run paid political ads.  Despite the fact that this change of policy will do little to affect Twitter's revenue, it will have a fairly significant effect on the ability of conservative candidates to reach their constituents.

Of the major social media sites, Twitter has been possibly the most egregious at banning moderate right-wing views while giving check marks to high-profile users who make statements calling for racial and political violence from the Left.  This banning policy has meant that many right-wing candidates have to limit their Twitter activity to keep from getting deplatformed.  The end effect is that they cannot get the grassroots traction that left-wing candidates enjoy.  Often, the only remaining option to reach right-wing users is through paid ads.  With this option now removed, Twitter is effectively isolating right-wing candidates.

It has become common knowledge that Twitter, Reddit, YouTube, Facebook, and other platforms not only censor right-wing views, but also work with platforms like PayPal and Stripe to economically punish advocates of right policies.  While it is tempting to say this censorship is directed at "conservatives," no one is getting banned because he advocated for balanced budgets or lower taxes.  This punishment targets a specific subset of American voters — ones who oppose mass migration, both legal and illegal.

One reason why Silicon Valley acts against U.S. citizens who oppose replacement migration is that roughly 71% of Silicon Valley workers are foreign-born.  Add to this the fact that many of these companies have large foreign ownership, and the end conclusion is that foreign nations and foreign people are using U.S.-based tech companies to stifle dissent from U.S. citizens that want their laws enforced and reasonable immigration policies put into place.

Why then doesn't Congress act to protect its citizens? 

The simple truth is that most members of Congress support mass migration.  Most if not all of the Democrats in office openly support ending enforcement of U.S. borders and effectively removing any regulations on immigration.  Many Republicans — even if they are elected pledging to "secure the border" or "protect American labor" — still privately support mass migration.

The reality of censoring right-wing speech is even more depressing. The simple fact is that most Democrats who face opposition in their party primaries are challenged from the left, and most Republicans are challenged from the right. These censorship policies therefore act to protect establishment Republicans from challengers who would actually take action on the issue of immigration.

Republican representatives therefore allow the censorship of their own base because, while it will destroy the party in the long term, it protects them from primary challenges in the short term.  Additionally, any opposition to the mass importation of workers through the H1-B or similar program will result in that congressional representative being challenged in his primary by an opponent well funded by the tech visa lobby.

On H.R. 1044 alone, roughly 50 companies with names like Microsoft, Facebook, Alphabet, and Amazon heavily lobbied Congress.  This is in addition to direct donations from the companies that employ H1-B visas as well as donations from U.S. citizens who simply desire to have as many of their countrymen immigrate here as possible.

Republican representatives simply believe that standing up for their constituents will result in their removal from office by powers far greater than any they can muster to defend themselves.  They are likely correct in this belief.

We do not allow water companies to deny service to people on the basis of political views.  Speech is the lifeblood of our nation and we cannot allow the speech of U.S. citizens to be stifled by foreign powers.  We must act now to ensure that every American has the right to speak in public and in the electronic public square.  Social media and payment processor companies cannot be allowed to deplatform American citizens without explicit violations of policies that can be demonstrated in court.

Without the ability to speak out in our defense, we will soon lose the understanding of the need as well as the ability to act out in our own defense.

The time is now.  Congress must act.

Joshua Foxworth is a Marine, an aerospace engineer, a tech entrepreneur, and a candidate for U.S. Congress in Texas.

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey announced yesterday that the platform will no longer accept and run paid political ads.  Despite the fact that this change of policy will do little to affect Twitter's revenue, it will have a fairly significant effect on the ability of conservative candidates to reach their constituents.

Of the major social media sites, Twitter has been possibly the most egregious at banning moderate right-wing views while giving check marks to high-profile users who make statements calling for racial and political violence from the Left.  This banning policy has meant that many right-wing candidates have to limit their Twitter activity to keep from getting deplatformed.  The end effect is that they cannot get the grassroots traction that left-wing candidates enjoy.  Often, the only remaining option to reach right-wing users is through paid ads.  With this option now removed, Twitter is effectively isolating right-wing candidates.

It has become common knowledge that Twitter, Reddit, YouTube, Facebook, and other platforms not only censor right-wing views, but also work with platforms like PayPal and Stripe to economically punish advocates of right policies.  While it is tempting to say this censorship is directed at "conservatives," no one is getting banned because he advocated for balanced budgets or lower taxes.  This punishment targets a specific subset of American voters — ones who oppose mass migration, both legal and illegal.

One reason why Silicon Valley acts against U.S. citizens who oppose replacement migration is that roughly 71% of Silicon Valley workers are foreign-born.  Add to this the fact that many of these companies have large foreign ownership, and the end conclusion is that foreign nations and foreign people are using U.S.-based tech companies to stifle dissent from U.S. citizens that want their laws enforced and reasonable immigration policies put into place.

Why then doesn't Congress act to protect its citizens? 

The simple truth is that most members of Congress support mass migration.  Most if not all of the Democrats in office openly support ending enforcement of U.S. borders and effectively removing any regulations on immigration.  Many Republicans — even if they are elected pledging to "secure the border" or "protect American labor" — still privately support mass migration.

The reality of censoring right-wing speech is even more depressing. The simple fact is that most Democrats who face opposition in their party primaries are challenged from the left, and most Republicans are challenged from the right. These censorship policies therefore act to protect establishment Republicans from challengers who would actually take action on the issue of immigration.

Republican representatives therefore allow the censorship of their own base because, while it will destroy the party in the long term, it protects them from primary challenges in the short term.  Additionally, any opposition to the mass importation of workers through the H1-B or similar program will result in that congressional representative being challenged in his primary by an opponent well funded by the tech visa lobby.

On H.R. 1044 alone, roughly 50 companies with names like Microsoft, Facebook, Alphabet, and Amazon heavily lobbied Congress.  This is in addition to direct donations from the companies that employ H1-B visas as well as donations from U.S. citizens who simply desire to have as many of their countrymen immigrate here as possible.

Republican representatives simply believe that standing up for their constituents will result in their removal from office by powers far greater than any they can muster to defend themselves.  They are likely correct in this belief.

We do not allow water companies to deny service to people on the basis of political views.  Speech is the lifeblood of our nation and we cannot allow the speech of U.S. citizens to be stifled by foreign powers.  We must act now to ensure that every American has the right to speak in public and in the electronic public square.  Social media and payment processor companies cannot be allowed to deplatform American citizens without explicit violations of policies that can be demonstrated in court.

Without the ability to speak out in our defense, we will soon lose the understanding of the need as well as the ability to act out in our own defense.

The time is now.  Congress must act.

Joshua Foxworth is a Marine, an aerospace engineer, a tech entrepreneur, and a candidate for U.S. Congress in Texas.