It appears as if Twitter has now permanently banned President Donald Trump’s account, Facebook and Instagram are also considering a permanent ban as well.
Some argue these are privately run enterprises and it’s their prerogative to do business with whomever they choose.
Others may argue that these tech giants are monopolies and hold excessive, unaccountable control over the American populace.
But since I am neither a constitutional scholar nor am I an expert on anti-trust legislation, I will leave this argument to be settled in the appropriate branch of government, whether it be the legislative or the judiciary.
But for now, I would like to pose a rhetorical question if you will:
Is there a difference between Jack Dorsey at Twitter refusing to do business with a potential customer in order to stifle political opposition and a small-family run business opting not to enter into a business contract which could compromise their religious beliefs?
The former, working in conjunction with the other social media magnates, has the ability to not only shut down the president’s voice, he also has the ability to shut down everybody he disagrees with.
The latter, on the other hand, under the pressure of special interest’s groups, will probably struggle to maintain their business – especially if the courts fail to appropriately uphold the United States Constitution - and they also may quite possibly be forced to shut down their business.
So, depending on how each of us answers this question, it just might be true that “all animals are equal” as George Orwell parodied, “but some animals are more equal than others.”