As if Big Tech censorship wasn’t bad enough, they now have the support of President Biden behind them.

That should come as no surprise given that Big Tech helped Biden win the election by censoring stories that were harmful to him and his family.

Most notable was a New York Post piece that contained information obtained from Hunter Biden’s laptop hard drive that revealed that Joe Biden was tied in with Hunter’s shady business dealings.

After all, Joe is the “big guy.”

When asked whether the President supported Big Tech censorship, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said he does.

“Circle Back Psaki” said, “His view is that there is more that needs to be done to ensure that this type of misinformation, disinformation, damaging, sometimes life-threatening information is not going out to the American public.

The president’s view is that the major platforms have a responsibility related to the health and safety of all Americans, to stop amplifying untrustworthy content, disinformation, and misinformation, especially related to COVID-19, vaccinations, and elections.”

The problem with Big Tech censorship is that it is directed only one way—towards conservatives—and there is no objective standard of what is true anymore. Another problem is that the social media titans make it nearly impossible to follow their community guidelines. They change their mind on the rules all the time, usually when it allows them to target conservatives.

As a conservative, my first inclination is to oppose government regulation of business. However, Big Tech does provide unique challenges given that they control large swaths of information.

Generally, I oppose government intervening to break up companies because, even if those companies have a monopoly on the industry, they have to continue to produce a product or service that people are willing to buy.

It is government-protected monopolies that are worse because they don’t allow for market incentives to produce goods or services that consumers desire to purchase.

It could be argued—though I am skeptical of the argument—that since the government regulates television and radio via the FCC, they should regulate Big Tech and treat them like a public utility.

It is a tempting argument—after all BIG Tech and broadcast networks are distributers of information—but the counter-argument is that there shouldn’t be an FCC in the first place.

For conservatives to call for Big Tech to be regulated like broadcast networks isn’t consistent with the long-held orthodoxy that the FCC shouldn’t even be a regulator that exists.

So, why add another regulator to regulate one transmitter of information but not another?

The best answer may be to simply repeal section 230, a law that protects open platforms from litigation. This law, often used as a shield by Big Tech, should be repealed given that Facebook, Twitter, and Google act like publishers, not platforms when deciding what content they will allow to be posted.

Regardless of where you stand on the question of Big Tech regulation, I am sure many of us can agree on one thing: Joe Biden shouldn’t be trusted to decide what should and shouldn’t be allowed to be posted on social media sites.