>>94143
>Of all the things for a /pol/ack to be bluepilled on, I wouldn't expect it to be this
You aren't some hard nosed deliverer of tough redpilled truths; you're just a retard. Judicial activism is a huge problem but it isn't total and ubiquitous to the point where judges who know their damn job is to apply the law is written can't be leveraged. If your tinfoil blackpill vision of the world were accurate then the SCOTUS wouldn't have ruled in favor of the Christian bakers or incorporated the 2nd amendment as a right protected under the 14th. If what you said were true, then leftists wouldn't be shitting their beds because Trump gets to appoint justices and judges. And, once again, SMACA protects leftist views as well as right-wing ones. It depowers big tech; it does not empower the government to do anything they don't already do through the FCC and FTC, and the country is better off for it unless you're a "Muh Private Entity" turbo-cuck.
>Who do you think is insulating them, dipshit?
Their investors and their monopoly status by the nature of their service. The whole point of social media platforms is to be shared venues of communication. "Breaking them up" won't work. Competition cannot get in on the action because of the Network Effect and scaling. Competition also cannot work at lower levels of the chain of service because web hosts, domain registrars, payment processors, and banks will collude to undermine a free speech alternative to leftist censorship.
This is all done through muh fwee meerkat. It is not a state problem. It does, however, require a POLITICAL SOLUTION to put an end to private property abuse against the rights of the people. But no, tread all you like on that snek cuz "At least is not le goberment."
> Hint: it's the same people that decide how your law will be interpreted.
No. It is not. Sorry!
>There's no interpretation of "shall not be infringed" that allows the NFA, the GCA of 1968, the Hughes Amendment, the Brady Bill, or a bump stock ban to exist either, and yet here we are
So what? What even is your point? Why are you even here arguing? It's pretty goddamn clear that a bill that forbids a specific size of a specific industry from censoring something for which there's mountains of precedent defining legal versus illegal speech isn't going to empower the state to censor. This is worse than the "net neutrality is government takeover" kikery that lolbergs advance. It's a complete inversion of reality of the type that can only happen when you think HHH is a credible philosopher because empiricism doesn't real.
>If you STILL haven't realized that "big tech" is fully in bed with the government you're trying to use against it you truly are hopeless.
Funny how SMACA turns the obligation of government against that, huh?
Look, here's the thing: Waiting for non-government solutions in a world where states are the norm is a recipe for guaranteed failure. As long as the state exists, it is beyond stupid not to use the present organs of said state against our enemies because they sure as hell have no problem using them against us. Your non-solution alternatives merely force us to wait for the left-wing machine to bulldoze us down and deprive us of any means to communicate, recruit, and organize falling on the sword of some high-minded consistency ethic.
This isn't a suicide pact. It's time for spergs like you to sit down and shut up while the realists do something instead of waiting for the avatar of Rothbard to descend from the heavens with a flaming sword and break up the country into NAP-abiding ancapistan communes.