Neither Google nor Facebook "grew out of the state". There has been government funding throughout science. The science and technology were developed for scientific and commercial reasons, with a lot more investment funding, not a statist plot.

Government has both valid and invalid reasons for exploiting technology. The mass surveillance developed and implemented inside NSA and other agencies also makes use of the mass surveillance by "Big Data" for its own purposes. Some of that has been co-opted and some through raw power and deception. The courts certainly are failing to defend the rights of the individual across the board. It is all made possible by the destruction of individualistic philosophical premises and the failure to apply them to new technology, such as proper definitions and defense of property rights in information now being stolen and disseminated everywhere.

But the courts are not supporting contractual rights. We speak about his in the essay. Against government, your refuge is in the courts. If they abandon you, it gets tough..

And they should stand up for their rights to the government, and not cower.

Good point. Google certainly grew out of the State. Not so sure about Facebook. But it doesn't seem to matter. The State has too many tools to co-opt them into being their agents, given that even in the U.S., courts are not protecting the rights of free contracting.

I'm not sure that Google and Facebook were ever private, free-market corporations rather than fascist tools. Government funding and influence was apparently involved from the beginning. This article on the government's pervasive involvement in the tech sector (with the focus primarily on Google) is long, but very informative. https://medium.com/insurge-intelligen...

Oops thanks for the correction.

Try this link instead: www.thesocietyproject.org

Tech giants don't have the right to censor, nor any ability to do so.
Tech companies choosing who they host is them exercising their free speech. Among numerous other rights, like property rights and freedom of association, etc.

Articles like this are simply confused about the most of basic political terms.

"Censor" is a political term, like "dictatorship."
It can only be used literally in the political context.
And in the political context it refers only to government action.

Well, Objectivists oppose leftist violation of property rights advocated by Cruz here, so...

All your examples lack context. The term “censor” has always had meaning which requires specific context.

Go Cruz. But will that be enough to turn the tide?

Many thanks for the compliments, Lucky. Yes, the image of the gray sky is deliberate although I was not thinking of any parallels with Atlas Shrugged.

Yes, Tech Giants have the rights to censor. But their hand is being forced by the State's intrusions. Intrinsically, the corporation is pro-Capitalism and pro-Individualism.

Thank you for your comments. And feel to share on social media.

Another great article from Vinay.
The article opens with a pic of a cityscape. This is a reminder of the opening pages of Atlas Shrugged.
The view of gray sky, low sun, and new-brutalist architecture (Melbourne, Australia) is clean and modern but the gloom reminds the viewer that the human construct of the city is a tool indifferent as to its use.

Note the tower in the center, it could be thrusting heavenward to achievement and knowledge, or it could be looking down to control and oppress the city streets.
The city can inspire and facilitate human life as a romantic adventure, or it can house Orwell's HQ of Truth, Peace, and Plenty, more correctly described as propaganda, war, and rationing.
Cities are becoming more of centers of corporatism- banking, government, executive management, and less of trade. Trading is done but not of goods and services but of abstractions such as licenses (permissions), amounts of money are in billions, the ownership of this money is veiled.
There are daytime crowds of tourists at the corporate sponsored galleries, but art and production are elsewhere.

With such symbolism, and (too much maybe) imagination, I question the title-
The “Corporation” Is Pro-Individualism and Pro-Capitalism.
Cities today are dominated by corporatism and are tools both for pro-individualism and the institutions of central control, de-humanized and anonymous.

The main theme of the article is Social responsibility. What is this? The current focus of interpretation is not on individuals, their rights and achievements but the needs of society as set by our (re/pro)gressive elites who control education and the communication media. Our big corporations, in banking, the media, pharma, utilities, airlines and etc. are in it, maybe only as participants going with the flow, but putting their resources at the service of the propaganda elites. The article correctly labels this as fascism, the use by the state for the ends of the state (the elites, the ruling class). The central state gets its work done not by ownership of major corporates but by subverting corporate executives so that the corporates act properly and responsibly - as defined by those elites.

On this site, recent bad behavior of the big IT corporates has been discussed and defended by the claim that the corporation is private property and management acts with their own money.
In Atlas Shrugged recall what Dagny Taggart and Hank Readon thought about the corporate-government axis controlling prices, resources, and the market. Is that what we have today, is government controlling the corporates, or are corporates controlling government? Same difference?

That's because in 100+ years of American dictionaries we didn't have to deal with this level of stupidity.

Dictionaries aren't going to tell you HOW to use words.
They just give you definitions for words.
They assume you know what you're talking about.

Just think about it for two seconds.
If censorship described more than just government regulation of speech then what wouldn't be censorship?
Didn't hire someone? Censored.
Fired someone? Censored.
Didn't want to do business with someone? Censored.
etc.
You're describing EVERYTHING which means you're describing NOTHING.

Just use your brain for two seconds.

The reality is you DON'T care what words mean.
You just want to attack private enterprise you disagree with politically.

This makes you a supporter of ACTUAL censorship.

Ted Cruz going full Maxine Waters and no one pointing this out is what's really interesting.

This is a major issue. We will need a good alternative to YouTube, but when it becomes sizeable, it will also come under attack by the Left.

Too many people have been trained to vote rather than pay for products and services of others. It will take a major failure of this corrupt system to “fix” this.

I personally don't think it it possible anymore. Not that I won't keep trying but think we've went beyond the point of no return.

Okay. Good response. Like I said, 'fix it'. You can do that by voting.

There is no fixing a corrupt government. We are close to the place where replacement is the only option. I'm not bitching. All my life I've voted for people who have promised what I voted for and delivered nothing or the opposite. This system is at its end. I hope we can replace it with (real) capitalist.

I don't think it is the corporation as much as it is the corporation that became to big to fail and therefore used the government to survive. It doesn't matter the make up of the company if they have to survive without government assistance. Live or die, on your own!

What bothers me about Google is that their You Tube division has demonetized most of the user platforms, from the Slingshot Channel to Sidney Watson, and Jon Mark. Also, many of the Gun Channels. Joerg Sprave of the Slingshot Channel which originates out of Germany formed the YouTubers Union to fight against YouTube. He has met with Youtube associates in Germany which failed. The Union has helped to pressure YouTube into further negotiations. Creator's originally had access to a small part of the advertising revenue stream, now that no longer exists. Many still submit videos on their own "dime". That ted Cruz video was excellent!
I don't use Google as a search engine on my home computer. I do use it occasionally on my cellphone. I did notice recently that Facebook feed has slowed considerably but at this point, it hasn't become a problem.

Up against Ted Cruz, Mr. Karan Bhatie was definitely having a so-called "good censorship" PR problem.

You may also be intested in this, which is Ted Cruz asking questions to Google’s vice President about their internal document called, “The Good Censor.”
https://youtu.be/w5gESMIDpuE