Posted on 05/06/2019 3:30:38 AM PDT by Kaslin
Facebook and Instagram took the extraordinary step last week of banning several “far right” commentators and one left-wing anti-Semite (yeah, that was news to The Washington Post) from their platforms entirely. It was the latest in a series of moves over the past several months and years designed to curb what the platforms’ liberal management and ownership see as “dangerous,” albeit not illegal, speech.
Before Jones, Paul Joseph Watson, and Milo, it was key “alt-right” figures like Jared Taylor, David Duke and Richard Spencer being purged from various platforms. Next, will it be religious groups that oppose gay marriage, anti-illegal immigration organizations or even those who don’t believe the entire Third World should be brought to the United States en masse? Maybe those affected are a few ideological steps away, but we should all be asking the question: How many steps until it’s us?
Sure, Alex Jones and Infowars, much less Louis Farrakhan, have said and published a lot of things that are easy to disagree with. But in Jones’ case, at least, nobody of any credibility has accused him of being a racist, and while some content on the Infowars website certainly consists of outlandish speculation at best, such a description might have on occasion fit Trump’s “fake news” targets The Washington Post and New York Times.
In other words, it’s a slippery slope, one that leads us down an increasingly undesirable path where the only speech that is “acceptable” is that which does not offend a single person - or basically no speech at all. Yes, it was done by a private corporation and not a governmental entity, and as such was legal, but such moves do have ominous portents about the future ability of conservatives to tell the truth and spread our message.
Politico senior writer Jack Shafer pointed out Friday that, while what goes on on the platform is “Facebook’s house,” there are free speech health implications to both governmental and corporate attempts to shut it down.
“Free speech’s health has traditionally been measured in America not by what we will allow speakers to say, although that is important, but what listeners will tolerate,” he wrote. “If enough of us stomach the dissemination of wicked conspiracy theories, race hatred, radicalism, blasphemy, poisonous lies, militancy, fearmongering and ugliness, that’s a good sign that free speech has found a safe harbor. But if the government censors the bounders and miscreants who spew these ideas—or if corporations, churches and other organizations work to strangle their expressions—then free speech is in trouble.”
Reason’s Nick Gillespie argues that such moves “feeds into the tendency to try suppress beliefs that one considers contemptible, dangerous, or evil. Those are not sharply delimited categories, and the tendency will be for more and more material to be seen as worthy of being policed, regulated, and eliminated. That is what's happening on many college campuses, and the results are not encouraging for a society that believes in freedom of expression.”
Whereas liberals have historically been the ones defending free speech at all costs, this time conservatives are up in arms because it is conservative voices and opinions that are being suppressed, not by government, but by private corporations whose power, particularly over the public consciousness, rivals that of any nation. Except, when it comes to solutions, conservatives often run into conflict with their own stated values. “Government cannot regulate speech,” said the good libertarian, “but a private corporation can do whatever it wants.”
Okay, but what happens when that private corporation is a virtual (no pun intended) monopoly? I suppose there’s no need to ask, because it’s happening now. “Don’t like it? Go start your own social media platform!” a conservative or libertarian might say smugly, as if it were just a matter of learning a little code and a making a quick visit to GoDaddy. Yeah, good luck with that.
Sure, some have tried to make platforms to rival Facebook and Twitter (there’s the horribly hard to navigate Gab, and have you ever heard of any of these Facebook “alternatives?”), but any would-be competitors are sunk before they even begin by the very definition of a successful social network - everyone wants to be where everyone else is. Once Facebook and Twitter - two different types of platforms - gained peak popularity as the platform of choice for that style, it became nearly impossible to dethrone them absent a shift of monumental proportions. Even when companies create features people enjoy, Facebook’s billions can simply purchase or copy them. Even if someone were willing to risk a few billion of their own dollars in a foolhardy attempt to create the “next Facebook,” the user network is the key and they’d be starting at zero. Facebook’s unparalleled user numbers combined with unrivaled riches amounts to a monopoly that would put U.S. Steel to shame.
So we’re left with a digital public square of sorts that has replaced the old one, brought about by the rise of the internet and its limitless possibilities and controlled by a few powerful corporations who happen to be do-gooder liberal types who think that socialism is cool and free speech drools.
But, what to do? Let’s hope President Trump will put his money where his mouth is on the issue and get SOMETHING done, but not every suggestion is a good one. Texas Senator Ted Cruz’s approach would potentially remove the immunity social media platforms that engage in speech censorship currently enjoy from Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which otherwise holds platforms legally liable for content posted by users. By Cruz’s logic, if Facebook sees itself as the arbiter of speech on the internet, they are no longer a “neutral public forum” and should not enjoy those benefits. Except, would removing this protection merely hoist conservatives by their own petard by ‘forcing’ Facebook to simply ban any speech it deems remotely questionable?
In his article on the subject, Gillespie recommends that social media networks install a series of robust filters that allow people to block certain types of content, even if such content is posted by friends and family members. It would work, and it’s a great idea, but methinks these social media giants aren’t interested in a solution that allows free speech. Could they have more nefarious motives? After all, they want to ban speech, not debate or debunk it. Why? “What are they afraid of?” an inquiring mind might ask.
At any rate, the only viable solution - and the sooner every conservative and free-thinking liberal gets there, the better - is for these social media giants to be regulated just like any other public utility. While illegal speech such as harassment and incitements to violence would still be illegal and prosecutable, everything else would be allowed.
Just as everyone, regardless of their political opinion, has the right to purchase electricity or running water, EVERYONE should have the right to speak freely on what has, for all intents and purposes, become the public square. Anything less is Un-American.
The problem is no one can prove it is a monopoly “in restraint of trade.”
FB/Twit erect NO “barriers” to entry, other than the fact that people voluntarily flock there. Any conservative wealthy person could create such a network, only none do.
A shift “might” be possible if a real alternative, such as Gab that fixed its problems and became user friendly, were to see President Trump abruptly leave Twit and join. Immediately about 50m followers would go there, and probably double as each of those undoubtedly has a few people who don’t follow Trump.
But legally, you’d find it difficult to justify the “barriers to entry” clause. Just because no consumers want to buy your product does not constitute a barrier to entry legally.
Um.....no....FB is NOT a private company!
Facebook is publicly traded corporation owned by its individual shareholders, so yes, it's a private company. Facebook's use is so prevalent that perhaps it should be regulated like a public utility, but the fact remains: Facebook is a private company.
Still, splitting hairs....doesn’t even compare to a mom and pop private bakery.
The Ted Cruz idea is faster, and may be needed to stop these platforms from interfering with the 2020 elections. But eventually, antitrust proceedings need to be carried out against them.
As Europe is already beginning to do. They will take a very long time, and actually need a new, Civil Rights, justification for antitrust, but the ball needs to get rolling.
Eventually, they must either adopt the traditional “advocacy of criminal violence” standard, or they must be broken up. And “criminal violence” must be defined as actual criminal violence, not just imaginary or hysterical belief in violence.
that is why the only option is regulation as a utility
Sure, I could see that as a reason for disavowing the monopoly requirement.
I was speaking to the original premise of the article and how I believe the author gets it wrong vis-à-vis Ted Cruz’s argument. Cruz is correct in his argument that these platforms are actually content providers because they do edit, change, allow, deny, or limit access to content based on their editorial review, algorithms, etc... They moderate content, which is the same as editing.
Alex Jones (and company) are not being de-personed because of what they said, exactly.
They are being de-personed because of the INFLUENCE they had in the last election.
It's a subtle difference but a difference.
Had the formula that has always worked still worked--Alex Jones would have been allowed to go on business as usual. That formula was painting him as a whacko, extremist, dangerous, etc. However, that was no longer working. In fact, Joe Six Pack, wife AND kids were now getting their information from places like Infowars and the MEMES were insanely powerful in getting the ideas out there and painting pictures.
And remember this, Alex Jones and the alt-light (Paul Joseph Watson, Cernovich, etc) are like a gateway drug. Once (younger) people discover those sources, they quickly red-pill and move on to even redder pilling sources.
Alex Jones and the alt-right meme makers won the last election. They think they can stop it from happening again. However, the one thing on side is they can't get inside the heads of these kids that grew up on the internet. It's like they speak two different languages. It's a large part of WHY the left can't meme.
Alex Jones (and company) are not being de-personed because of what they said, exactly.
They are being de-personed because of the INFLUENCE they had in the last election.
It's a subtle difference but a difference.
Had the formula that has always worked still worked--Alex Jones would have been allowed to go on business as usual. That formula was painting him as a whacko, extremist, dangerous, etc. However, that was no longer working. In fact, Joe Six Pack, wife AND kids were now getting their information from places like Infowars and the MEMES were insanely powerful in getting the ideas out there and painting pictures.
And remember this, Alex Jones and the alt-light (Paul Joseph Watson, Cernovich, etc) are like a gateway drug. Once (younger) people discover those sources, they quickly red-pill and move on to even redder pilling sources.
Alex Jones and the alt-right meme makers won the last election. They think they can stop it from happening again. However, the one thing on side is they can't get inside the heads of these kids that grew up on the internet. It's like they speak two different languages. It's a large part of WHY the left can't meme.
ISP’s most certainly fall under the guise monopoly law since the control access to the internet which is critical to business, but I don’t see why Google, FB, or Tweter is critical.
Yes it would be difficult to start a rival company to these entities, but not impossible so long as Google, FB, etc... Do no actively try to suppress them.
I don’t use any of the above companies products and i am not adversly affected.
That is why i don’t see the gov’t being able to break them up.
For me it was a bit inconvenient in the beginning. I found other ways to contact the people that I really need to. It has worked out just fine. ;o)
Facebook began a public trade of stock after the 18 May 2012 IPO. The Facebook Common Stock can be found listed as (FB) on the NASDAG Composite.
Facebook & Twitter are no different than Bell Telephone was in the 70’s.Private Co. Ma Bell built all the infrastructure, but were broken up anyway. These are public communication utilities. They cannot be allowed to discriminate or censor.
A few weeks ago I had a meltdown and flashed my boobs.
Don’t goad me. Who knows what could happen.
Lets say a prospective employer rejects you for something you posted at one time on Facebook?
They are a Platform or a Publisher. They can’t continue to hide.
critical to Millennials :)
“critical to Millennials :)”
But not to normal human beings.
Try this one on for size: split the f**king companies up and make them compete with one another, just like we did with Ma Bell.
Let’s stop playing patsy with these morons.
exactly
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.