RNLA Vice President for Communications Harmeet Dhillon wrote today about Twitter's ban of Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's campaign account and how it is only the latest example of big technology companies' bias against conservatives and Republicans.  His account was reinstated today, after having been banned all week:

But this victory by the most powerful Republican in Congress is an exception to the censorship suffered by many others as a result of Big Tech’s anti-conservative bias and increasingly brazen interference in the political arena, which pose serious threats to our democracy.

Majority Leader McConnell's campaign account was banned for posting videos of protestors threatening violence outside his home. Ms. Dhillon noted the sad irony in Twitter's double standard:

Twitter initially said that the McConnell campaign’s post calling public attention to a video of the threats being made against their candidate “violated our violent threats policy, specifically threats involving physical safety."

Yet incredibly, Twitter has taken no serious disciplinary action against the users who got “#MassacreMitch” and “#AssassinateTrump” trending. In fact, Twitter let them trend. So making threats against Republicans is fine, but Republicans who report those threats must be censored, according to the logic of Twitter’s original decision to kick the McConnell campaign off the platform.

Ms. Dhillon also notes that under the expansive definition of in-kind campaign contributions that liberals would like to apply to President Trump, tech companies are making a massive in-kind contribution to certain Democratic campaigns through their disparate treatment:

By choosing to censor a candidate’s ads while allowing an opponent’s to stay up, or banning one candidate’s voice on social media and allowing another to go uninhibited, Twitter is potentially pushing the boundaries of federal election law by essentially making a massive in-kind contribution to one side – all unreported and untracked.

Democrats, who endorse incredibly broad definitions of in-kind donations when it comes to attacking President Trump, have mostly turned a blind eye to Big Tech’s election interference. That is a terrible mistake, because this is not a partisan issue, as Democratic presidential candidate Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii can attest. . . . Though conservatives are targeted far more, Big Tech’s relentless efforts to control political discourse affect candidates from both parties.

There are various regulatory changes being considered to address censorship and bias by big technology companies, but thanks to Harmeet Dhillon and other strong voices supporting free discourse online, the companies are at least being held accountable in the court of public opinion.