Most conservatives have more negative interactions with Facebook than with Google. It’s Facebook that is very obviously shadowbanning, banning and deleting content.

And that’s triggering a lot of anger and calls to break up Facebook.

There’s a case for breaking up Facebook, but it’s much more important to break up Google. Here are four reasons why.

 

1. The obsession with breaking up Facebook is an outgrowth of a Democrat effort to suppress conservative voices on social media. Many conservatives were passing around a Daily Mail article about a call by Facebook billion Chris Hughes’ call to break up his old company. They didn’t notice that is also contained a call for a government agency to determine what people can say on social media.

Democrats prefer Google to Facebook because it determines what everyone should see, without caring what they want to see. Social media is driven by user postings. Facebook has undermined that, but it’s still a place where conservatives have more of a voice than they do on Google.

Google’s bias affects fewer conservatives directly unless they’re running sites, but it’s much more devastating to America as a whole.

The crucial conservative goal has to be to restore the agency of the user on the internet. There’s some user agency on social media. There’s zero user agency with Google. 

 

2. Breaking up Facebook won’t have much of an impact on your user experience. Breaking up Facebook will likely mean forcing it to spin off the other social media companies it owns. Not its core site. That means it won’t really affect you when you’re using Facebook.

It will make it possible for more social media companies to rival Facebook in the long run. But it isn’t going to do anything about Facebook censoring conservatives now. 

 

3. The legal case for breaking up Google is much more solid than the case for breaking up Facebook.

Google’s purchase of DoubleClick is still a ticking time bomb. It dominates search much more thoroughly than Facebook dominates social. There are a variety of social media rivals to Facebook that are viable. The only rival to Google is Microsoft’s Bing, which thoroughly imitates Google’s practices so as to make it a distinction without a difference. Bing is still better than Google in terms of privacy and bias,, but not much. (Sites like DuckDuckGo, etc.. just offer access to Google’s index with more privacy.)

Google’s control over devices, through Android, various other Google os flavors and Chromebook, services, through Gmail, Maps, Docs, etc, and search, puts it much closer to the definition of a monopoly, and makes it much easier to break up.

Cut off Google’s ad business from its search business, spin off its OS business, and the monopoly is gone. And the legal case is solid.

 

4. As we’ve seen with the James Damore case, Google is culturally even more radical than Facebook. 

Facebook’s leadership has been making some arguments for free speech. Google has completely backed away from its old free speech culture. Its search index is completely tilted toward media and censoring conservatives.

Google is also much more closely integrated with the Democrat infrastructure. And, as Eric Schmidt showed us, sometimes there’s no difference between Google and the Democrat campaign.

Breaking up Facebook without Google, would leave the Democrats and the Left far more in control of the internet. Breaking up Google without Facebook would shift the balance of power toward Republicans and social media.