That is an improper use of the concept, all too common as sloppiness grows. Dictionaries give (changing) common word usage accepted by repetition, not definitions of valid concepts. It's not an argument for controlling publishing by private companies.

"A Pearl Harbor mentality is a common descriptor for people who, despite overwhelming evidence, INSIST their point of view is correct."
Right, but then you're describing yourself.

"It is an observation to explain a lack of understanding that could easily be reasearched and corrected."
You haven't observed any lack of understanding that could easily be researched and corrected from me.
This is amusing projection on your part.

"You mistate the position, no one is saying that the government control google, beyond making them follow their terms of service and their contract, and not censor people because of their message."
You don't get to dictate what their terms of service are or how they choose to enforce them. That would be "government control google."
Also, as has been explained, google cannot "censor" anyone. You still haven't understood how to use that term correctly.
Only the government can censor.

In short, you have a complete lack of understanding that you could easily research and correct.

That's not true. Ayn Rand differenciates by cohersive and consumer created monopolies. Cohersive monopolies can only be created by gov't and are bad and anti-consumer and anti business. Consumer created monopolies are good and should never be penalized for being better than other businesses. They should not be brought done to mediocrity. You need to read Ayn Rand Lexicon on Anti-Trust.

Uh, you cannot have a good business atmosphere and monopolies, that is just counterintuitive. They are like the big fish, and what do they do? Eat the little ones. So, there will be NO business if monopolies are allowed. Innovation is only stimulated by competition, I do believe that was one of Ayn Rands basic tenants.

You sound just like Tucker Carlson. Your whole premise is that all monopolies are corrupt. I do not believe they are. I believe that some companies, like Amazon, got so big because they are so in tune with what consumers want, and they have business savy. Google obviously is that way too. If you introduce gov't control into the mix, then game over for free enterprise. Just my opinion.

Liberals did with the Telecommunications Act and its various incarnations and the immunity given to providers, to avoid being held accountable for their material.

It is an observation to explain a lack of understanding that could easily be reasearched and corrected. You claim "same reason to oppose government control of google that populist (collectivist-statist) conservatives advocate." You mistate the position, no one is saying that the government control google, beyond making them follow their terms of service and their contract, and not censor people because of their message. The difference between a horse and a cow, just because they have 4 legs does not make them equal.

Yes, you are pretty near the mark of the issue. The problem is legal remedies are slow and will allow them to make the situation they need. Silence the conservative voices. It is happening in FB, Google, YT and Twitter. Accounts closed for "violation of terms" when others speaking the right kind of "kill them all" chants are allowed and promoted. When you have the only platform in town, you hold all the cards. That was Tuckers point.

Point 1. I will sit-on-the-fence again on this.
Point 2. 'no right to use '. Yes yes! My memory is that the agitator wanted a slogan on the cake, the baker accepted that customer but objected that he was required to write out the slogan thereby becoming a mouthpiece for ideas contrary to his own standards and purpose.

Nope, you are wrong, nothing personal about it. A Pearl Harbor mentality is a common descriptor for people who, despite overwhelming evidence, INSIST their point of view is correct. It was used to describe the "isolationists" of Pre-WW2 America who INSISTED "No war" was the only way and nearly destroyed the country, and who, after the various German aggression, attacks and then Pearl Harbor, were branded as traitors and Nazi sympathizers,and their party dissolved in less than a week. Lindburgh was their leader and switched to "support" of the war afterwards but was isolated and not allowed to participate. It was his end as a public figure. Not a smear at all. Fact.

"Private companies cannot prevent you from speaking: So when you are banned from the platform they are, what, helping your message, promoting you message, broadcasting your message? If the phone company cuts your line off, that is? Yet they keep every liberals phone working? That is called, uh, selective business? Really.....

ewv, go do your research and come back when you know facts, the connections between google, FB, twitter all their management and CIA are undeniable and have been posted. Keep those blinkers on, and your won't risk panic or running into the street.

Exactly so.

So, if every store in the country got together and decided to sell all meat for 50.00 a lb you would...? Go to a farmer? Have you ever bough meat that way, get it butchered? Do you know a butcher? These people are in the same position, where they wer led by the nose to set up the system of communications used by 80-90% of Americans, and have their message to get out, and have been shut down because the company does not want that message out, in Germany WW2, that was called censorship. In the US in Vietnam it was called censorship, now you folks call it "business"? So, the media has a right to lie to you, not tell the facts, and still claim to be journalistic and you are ok with that? What a strange world...

Many facts mentioned in this post are correct, but there is a lot I do not understand.
No shoes, no shirt, no service .. for or against, does/should the business have the right to discriminate like that? In arguing ignore law, consider the philosophy.

Google has a near complete monopoly, I do not use it directly but it is next to impossible to avoid as (most of) the search engines I use in turn use google. Same situation for the other mega-techs. If you do not use them, you are not quite an outcast but are a social misfit.

The question is, should governments have the power to intervene to enable me to bypass those mega-techs, or have the power to modify the parts of their behavior that I (in practice, government regulators) do not like? Is it a right of a citizen to have a choice when only one corporation provides a service out of its inventiveness? Once monopoly is established it is real hard for competitors to break-in. But it happened to IBM and Microsoft.

There may be a way to get them under the heading of contract violations, they make the user agree that they can do anything. I am unconvinced that harassment, ultra-biased search results, victimization of users because of opinions, etc. is covered by the 'anything'.

You always have a choice.

Consumer created monopolies are fine with me.

From the Miriam-Webster Dictionary “The station censored her speech before broadcasting it”
EWV by station do they mean Government?
When I looked up station , Government was not mentioned.

You’re using your mind. Just imagine how you would feel if everyone was equal in every way and there was no unfairness and the whole planet was all wonderful like. Don’t you FEEL this morally superior goal is worth any cost until we obtain it?
If you say yes, I got a bridge to sell you, cheap.

The "Fairness Doctrine" for the airwaves was an unmitigated disaster that denied freedom of speech and was removed in the 1980s. Conservatives want to resurrect it for the internet.

He said that is a "leftist, rights violating law" that he "opposes", for the same reason to oppose government control of google that populist (collectivist-statist) conservatives advocate. Smearing someone with "you don't get out much, do you?" is non-responsive.

Emphasizing the necessity of distinguishing between government actions and private actions is not a "Pearl Harbor mentality", which is a personal smear.

Google cannot and does not prevent you from using the internet in other ways. You get the "traffic" that you attract. Google does not owe you "traffic".

That is not the point that was made. Conservatives are using previous government funding of an early development of a technology as an excuse to control google, mixed with a conspiracy theory of government creating google for nefarious purposes.

The funding should never have been granted; that it was is not an excuse to control those benefited into the future. This is analogous the Soviet Union refusing to let people out because they received the 'benefit' of Soviet public education.