Checks and balances require the separate branches to be willing to apply them. With the apparent lack of any meaningful oversight by the legislature, it does not seem like the checks and balances are working very effectively.
I suppose that's a strong reason why many (including myself) prefer divided governments, so that adversaries can keep each other from going too far.
I don't remember where I read it, but something like this rings true: the founders anticipated authoritarians seeking power, but they did not anticipate legislators allowing it.
Edit: I don't mean to say that Trump becoming a dictator in the US is possible; I think that's extremely unlikely. I simply mean that there is a weakness in the US political system when government is controlled entirely by one party, and that this weakness could possibly be exploited some day.
Trump doesn't address other search engines though, which (hilariously) helps Google more than the threat of looming regulations hurts them. Getting attacked by Trump is a badge of honor at this point. Just about any liberal or conservative with a brain will realize only regulating Google's results is a very bad move when there is Bing, DuckDuckGo, and other search engines.
How exactly is trump promoting censorship here? Isn't he doing the exact opposite? Isn't he promoting free speech?
And frankly, I think it's great that the media and the president have an adversarial relationship. The president should attack the media ( free speech ) and the media should attack the president ( free press ). Why would you want the president and the media having a cozy relationship?
I can't think of a greater symbol of democracy and free speech than the president and the media keeping each other in check.
The media and president should be adversaries, not friends. I'd rather the media tell us everything the president is doing wrong and shining the spotlight on him and vice versa. And this isn't just about republicans. I wish the media would be more adversarial with the democrats as well. With all politicians. It's a great way to keep politicians honest.
Regarding the media, there's nothing wrong with the president and the media having an adversarial relationship and in fact I think that's the norm. But I wouldn't describe a president attacking the media as promoting free speech.
What if Google holds a monopolistic position in the search market, and its actions are detrimental to its users? What if what the government is doing is enforcing anti-trust rules?
Anyway even if that were found to be the case (and arguably there's a good case) I don't know if the likely remedy would be to allow the government to control search results.
If the government wants to meddle with search results the better approach might be from the FCC which could claim Google needs to operate under some kind of common carrier status I guess.
We are talking about a president who routinely threatens punitive government actions against detractors. There exists a line between criticizing bad journalism, and using executive powers to threaten critics. The later is what dictators do.
In the case of Google, they maintain their search algorithm is not politically biased. Unless we have substantive evidence proving otherwise I see no reason not to believe them.
It seems what Trump is suggesting here, is a government regime controlling what search results we see... That is a very scary prospect, right now.
I have a brother working as a journalist, who toils away fact checking, all day long. I can assure you he and his colleagues do way more due-diligence, fact-checking, and gathering of supporting evidence, than the Office of the Press Secretary could even try to pretend to.
It's so easy to get up in a press-conference say something patently false, when you don't allow any dissent.
If you don't like criticism it's "Fake News".
If you can't see what Trump is doing when he calls the media "Anti-American", you have the wool over your eyes. It's dictator 101.