Big Tech Hearings: Palatable or Posturing


The 1980s were revered as the decade of decadence. The hedonistic time bomb known as the youth were celebrating excess as the symbol of luxury. According to the dominant culture, the religious right was bringing their spirits down by cautiously warning them about the destructive influence their lifestyle was reaching in terms of popularity.

This is one of the best examples of revisionism becoming a pop culture phenomenon. Alongside the mocking of televangelists, it was socially acceptable to condemn Catholics and their Church due to bad representatives like Jimmy Swaggart.

Tipper Gore and her P.M.R.C. campaign advocated for the infamous Parental Advisory stickers to be placed on obscene album covers. The metalheads cried censorship despite the repeated clarification that Gore and her members do not support the prevention of music distribution. When pop singers delve into sexual material, maybe that doesn’t lead young listeners in a positive direction. Flash forward to today and most of these mild suggestions are completely vindicated.

The P.M.R.C. trial was a proud moment for heavy metal to stand its ground against the fascist authoritarian ilk of Al Gore’s Orwellian wife. However, all the tough talk from Twisted Sister’s Dee Snider and Frank Zappa was not enough to win the case.

This same strategy is found in the social media hearings between Big Tech and Senator Ted Cruz. Every month, there is a compilation available of Cruz holding Mark Zuckerberg accountable with his hostile demeanor. Yet, no legislation is ever made to restrict Big Tech from censoring conservative users on their platform. Despite the accusations made by Cruz, it never leads to any Teddy Roosevelt style order to stop Silicon Valley from being a publisher and take Section 230 seriously.

It begs the question when are lawyers who pay lip service to issues like Big Tech and Big Business going to be the trustbusters of the 21st century?

Aaron Cummings
Latest posts by Aaron Cummings (see all)