About a year and a half ago, I posted a piece on Roger McNamee’s Attack on Intellectual Freedom. McNamee is a regular guest on the business and stock market channel CNBC, and a constant agitator for government regulation and censorship of the internet through controls on media giants.
There are other guests who, like McNamee, see a problem with the free-wheeling openness of free speech platforms like Facebook and call for regulation as a "solution." But CNBC has been woefully absent of anyone able to point out the dangers to free speech, or even to defend free speech.
I have been highlighting the politically-motivated, broad attack on a free and open internet--See related links below. So it is with pleasure that I highlight an article by CATO Institute scholar Alan Reynolds, Roger McNamee’s Facebook Critique, which was posted by The Atlas Society. Reynolds focusses in large part on McNamee's criticism of Facebook's consumer friendly, commercially successful business model, but also recognizes the threat to free speech:
There are other guests who, like McNamee, see a problem with the free-wheeling openness of free speech platforms like Facebook and call for regulation as a "solution." But CNBC has been woefully absent of anyone able to point out the dangers to free speech, or even to defend free speech.
I have been highlighting the politically-motivated, broad attack on a free and open internet--See related links below. So it is with pleasure that I highlight an article by CATO Institute scholar Alan Reynolds, Roger McNamee’s Facebook Critique, which was posted by The Atlas Society. Reynolds focusses in large part on McNamee's criticism of Facebook's consumer friendly, commercially successful business model, but also recognizes the threat to free speech:
McNamee’s proposed regulation of “harmful behavior” would invite political censorship and propaganda. So too would his proposed subsidies and protection from competition for new firms deemed “civically responsible” by politicians and bureaucrats. “In exchange for adopting a benign business model, perhaps based on subscriptions, startups would receive protection from the giants. Given that social media is practically a public utility,” he claims, “I think it is worth considering more aggressive strategies, including government subsidies … [because] civically responsible social media may be essential to the future of the country. The subsidies might come in the form of research funding, capital for startups, tax breaks and the like.”
McNamee’s scheme for inviting ambitious political operatives to force Facebook to submit to being micro-managed as a regulated public utility is because he is confident that most common folk (unlike himself) are easily duped. It is his noblesse oblige to launch a political movement to protect the lumpenproletariat from their childish foolishness.Citing unhappiness with voting results like Brexit and the 2016 U.S. election, Reynolds concludes:
An author’s political agenda often drives the arguments, which explains why extreme rhetoric about hypothetical “crises” in the future are typically abused to excuse extreme proposals for government meddling in the present. McNamee turns out to be just another missionary for paternalistic big government to throttle successful big tech firms, subsidize less-promising firms, and protect the gullible masses from being persuaded by Facebook posts to make what he regards as politically undesirable choices.While free speech is still with us, it is under increasing attack. The attack is not overt. It comes under catchphrases such as "Dark Money", "New Neutrality", "Fake News", "Hate Speech", "Campaign Finance Reform." It comes in the form of regulatory extortion: "Either you do something about [the "misuse" of your platforms], or we will," Senator Dianne Feinstein told social media. Government censorship by proxie is still government censorship. It comes under cover of legitimate concerns, such as privacy or live streaming of violence. It comes in the form of calls to regulate internet companies as "public utilities." It comes under cover of "addiction" that requires regulation on "public health" reasons.
The threat to internet freedom and thus free speech is real, with many rationalizations, and it is growing. We need to fight back against the anti-free speech coalition.
Related Reading:
Roger McNamee’s Attack on Intellectual Freedom
George Soros; a Leading Point Man in the anti-free speech ‘broad anti-Facebook movement’
The Internet is Not a ‘Surveillance State’
NJ Star-Ledger Repudiates the First Amendment, Calls for Censorship
The Banning of Alex Jones: Facebook Choice or Regulatory Extortion?
Facebook/Cambridge Analytica Data Breach Should Not Be a Pretext for Government Controls
Corporate ‘Censorship’ and Fredrik DeBoer’s Evil ‘Solution’
No comments:
Post a Comment