Last week, President Trump tweeted about potentially exploring regulation for companies such as Google, citing a report that claimed searching for “ Trump News” pulls up disproportionately left-leaning results. Seemingly overnight, some conservatives like Laura Ingraham have made an about-face from their usual skepticism of government intervention in private business to floating full-throated support for government regulation of Google on national television.

Conservatives have every right to be suspicious when government seeks to regulate the marketplace. But where is this skepticism when it comes to social media? Only a few months ago, conservatives were mocking the Left for their inflammatory rhetoric on the repeal of Internet regulations like net neutrality.

The crux of the conservative argument in favor of net neutrality repeal was that the free market resolves many, if not all, industry woes. The Obama-era federal government, in the case of net neutrality, wanted to require Internet providers to grant equal access to all content online, regardless of source. This sounds great on its face, until one realizes that this requires Internet providers to offer equal downloading speeds to both a hospital’s emergency room and a guy watching Netflix in his basement. If conservatives agree that this type of government intervention doesn’t make sense for Internet providers, why wouldn’t it also be true for the social media sphere?

Lest we forget, the government hasn’t exactly been kind to conservatives when given expanded powers. During the Obama Administration, the IRS unfairly targeted conservative groups for enhanced review during their application phase for tax-exempt status. More recently, FBI agent Peter Strzok was fired for his inability to be objective in the Russian interference investigation. And, within the Trump administration, staffers at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau formed “ Dumbledore’s Army,” referencing a resistance movement conducted in the Harry Potter books, in an effort to resist the agenda of the Trump administration. The list could go on of government overreach at the expense of conservatives—and that’s just within the last five years.

We should not be so trusting in government that we want to give them the keys to call balls and strikes over something they already mishandle and with power they aren’t reluctant to abuse.

Furthermore, consider the implementation of government regulation on social media giants. There would be many fatal flaws in the process—but some are already obvious. Proponents of such regulation have suggested creating a commission similar to the Federal Communications Commission or the Federal Election Commissions. A president would appoint members and the Senate would confirm. This might sound attractive until one considers that these types of commissions and boards have historically and recently targeted conservatives. For example, the recent Supreme Court case Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission comes to mind, where a Colorado commission discriminated against a Christian baker.

Any government involvement in Internet speech also necessarily requires that businesses give the government access to their work. Consider when the FBI ordered Apple to create backdoor technology to unlock one of its phones so the bureau could access the information within. The government thereby attempted to undercut the very premise of Apple creating encryption software in the first place, and put the security of every iPhone at risk. Similarly, by government regulating speech on social media platforms, it is undermining the very purpose of the companies’ respective business models. When the axiom of a business drifts from its headquarters toward Washington, D.C., opportunities for abuse only expand—especially once D.C. is no longer dominated by Republicans.

Still, there is no doubt that Silicon Valley leans heavily to the Left. But that tilt doesn’t require tossing aside years of conservative principle opposing government intervention. Social media companies like Twitter and Facebook have already shown themselves to be conciliatory to conservative outcry over perceived discrimination. They have appeared before Congress to address issues and attempted to curate a space that doesn’t lead to pervasive misinformation. All the while, they’ve tried to maintain a growing business that doesn’t collapse by market forces. Furthermore, when mistakes happen, Facebook has conceded fault and issued apologies to conservative groups like PragerU. But they’ve also pointed out that its algorithms have censored left-wing content. So clearly, there’s no dire need for government to get involved, even if the president feels personally affronted.

It’s tempting to demand regulation when feeling discriminated against. Government, however, is not the answer to issues of left-wing bias in Silicon Valley. We sacrifice our principles when we cede power over private business to government and, in the technology space, we may very well be sacrificing our liberty.