Gun Businesses Lash Out At Big Tech's Monopolistic Practices

It’s tough to have a gun business these days.

At least, it is on the internet.

Sure, walk-in stores are blowing up with business. Everyone and their brother is wanting a gun for a variety of reasons and stores and having a hard time keeping up.

However, if you’re someone whose firearm-related business revolves around the internet, you may have a problem. You see, most of the big tech giants are anti-gun, which creates problems.

After Karl Kasarda’s YouTube channel, InRange TV, was wiped without warning in early 2018, the firearm enthusiast said he had little option but to turn to posting clips and reviews on a platform of a different kind: PornHub.

He said navigating the social media landscape when it comes to the Second Amendment is only becoming more frustrating and confusing.

“The issue of oligarchical control over the Internet and all the impact over the ability to use it for free speech is going to only get worse,” Kasarda told Fox News, alluding to the “big five” — YouTube, Google, Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.

“It is unclear what the rules are,” he added. “Specifically, with YouTube, they pretty much enforce whatever they feel based on their bias of the day. Regardless of your personal belief, firearms and their accessories are legal in the United States. So why are we seeing continuing restrictions and challenges towards content about something demonstrably legal yet not against that which is clearly illegal?”

However, we should note that the “big five” aren’t really five. Instagram is owned by Facebook while YouTube is owned by Google. So really, you’re looking at three companies that control a massive portion of how people interact online.

The problem is, though, that these are private entities and as such have the right to run their businesses however they want. If you’re against government regulation, it’s kind of hard to disagree.

That’s the hill these companies have been defending for quite some time. To be sure, they’re not wrong.

What they may want to consider, though, is that none of these entities really compete with each other. Each giant takes a different approach to the internet, providing very different services that can only be said to compete with one another under the loosest sense of the term.  Because of that, each could be said to be monopolistic, thus allowing them to unilaterally destroy people’s livelihoods.

You see, while they may be quite content to run their little fiefdoms however they see fit, they forget that monopolies aren’t exactly legal in this country. We break them up and have done so before. Is it that hard to imagine Google being forced to break up their many and varied services, including YouTube?

As things stood for some time, people allowed the monopolies because they didn’t really interfere with what most people were trying to do. However, that changed.

Now, it’s time these outfits be broken up and competition be allowed to rise.

Oh, sure, there are some places that seem to offer similar services, but they’re not really competition and everyone knows it.

Maybe now it’s time to change that.