I recently shared a Yaron Brook Show episode titled YBS: Twitter, Facebook, Social Media & Censorship on Facebook. My caption read,
"I am so happy to live in a country where a private company can ban the president. That's freedom; my ability not to have to listen . . . not to have to give the president a platform - on MY platform . . . That's freedom. You couldn't do this in China." -- Yaron Brook, on Twitter banning President Trump [4:00 - 5:00]. Keep this in mind when you hear hysterical voices calling for government regulation and/or takeover of social media. This is the best and most pro-American and pro-Constitution analysis of the uproar over social media "censorship" I have seen.
Brook defended the right of private companies to “deplatform”--i.e., remove--Trump and others from their social media platforms (although he questioned the morality and commercial wisdom of their actions). The following exchange followed with an acquaintance, whom I’ll identify as “G”, who wrote:
I'm conflicted on this one. I get that point however they are companies that operate in a public domain and use their power to silence dissenting view points. There can be no right that involves the violation of another's rights; I.e., the right to free speech. It is wrong to extend this right to some but not others based on political beliefs. [sic]
I replied:
Public Domain is a statist legal fiction that undermines rights. I agree that “There can be no right that involves the violation of another's rights'' but public domain theory actually inverts that principle. And we’ve seen this in action before. When gay marriage was legalized, it was followed by the legal persecution of Christian businesses that refused to serve gay marriage ceremonies because it violated their conscientious convictions. Why was this allowed? Because it was said that these businesses operated in the “public domain.” So when the New York Liberty Ridge banquet hall that refused to host a gay wedding and the Masterpiece Bakeshop in Colorado that refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding were ordered by the court to do so, to cite two examples, it violated their First Amendment rights to freedom of religion and association.
Rights involve not only the right to act, but the right not to act if you don’t agree. The same principles apply to social media. Just as the right of consenting same-sex adults to marry does not mean someone must be forced to provide a minister, a banquet hall, and a cake, so freedom of speech does not mean someone must be forced to provide a microphone, a printing press, a lecture hall, or a social media platform. “There can be no right that involves the violation of another's rights.” Twitter is not silencing anyone. Like the baker and the banquet hall, Twitter’s power does not extend beyond it’s own business. They are private businesses that cannot stop people from going elsewhere. Only the government can do that, which is why we should keep the government out.
I’m very upset at the social media actions restricting viewpoint expression. I don’t know where this will lead, but I do know it should be resolved in the free commercial market, not in government involvement. The First Amendment is on the side of the social media companies. The baker, banquet hall, and Twitter are in no way public domains. I do know that you can’t defend free speech by crushing it. Right now the most dangerous threat to free speech is coming from the Trump/GOP Right, which wants to repeal the First Amendment-protecting Section 230 or nationalize these companies outright as “public utilities.”
G responded:
G]reat points and you're correct in pointing out the flaws in my argument with regard to public domain. I do disagree however that Twitter isn't silencing anyone. That seems exactly what they are doing. Twitter is wrong to allow some to speak and not others based on arbitrary whims and ideological differences. This is exactly how statist dictatorships are formed. The suppression of dissenting ideas and speech. Twitter does not have to provide Trump with a platform but they do have an app that is accessible to the public. (Maybe a better way to make my point.) If Twitter had some objective guidlines and could show that Trump had violated those I might see it differently. Twitter, FB and others are simply trying to grab power by suppressing ideas they may not like. [sic]
Me:
If Twitter (or any company) violated their own guidelines, then that is grounds to sue for breach of contract, and the courts are the place to settle that. Other than that, I leave you with the last word. Thanks for visiting.
Another correspondent brought up monopoly power:
Section 203* should not be repealed, but... the companies that are editorializing and not offering the forum they are protected by having should no longer have the protection of Section 203*. What needs to be addressed is the straight up monopoly power. Not just silencing Trump but shutting down the competition by putting them out of business for offering what Twitter does not want to. [sic; a reference to Section 230, not 203]
Section 230 ensures that the people posting the material, and only people posting the material, are responsible for their content, rather than an innocent third party. I believe this is justice. This has been a great boon to freedom of expression for the common citizen. Imagine if newspapers were held liable for content posted in the comments section of articles. It would be the end of the comments sections. It’s the same with universities who rent out their lecture halls to controversial speakers. If universities were held liable for everything outside speakers say, that would be the end of the lecture hall forum. The fact that newspapers, universities, social media, and other hosts monitor what is said on their platforms according to their standards is not considered editorializing.
It’s important to get the understanding of monopoly right. Monopoly power is government force, period. A private company cannot prevent competition. It can only refuse to sell its services, as Amazon and Apple did with Parler. If Amazon was forced to become a public utility, protected from competition by law, that would be a monopoly. Parler and others are free to seek new hosts for their platforms, or build their own internet infrastructure, as Amazon and Apple did. Who could stop them? Not Apple. Not Amazon.
In fact, it’s already happening. Parler, which was forced to shut down after Amazon expelled it from its cloud services arm, is back online with new web hosting partners. SkySilk, Parler’s new cloud services provider, said in a statement reported by CNN:
In a statement to CNN Business, SkySilk said it believes Parler is "taking the necessary steps to better monitor its platform."
"Skysilk does not advocate nor condone hate, rather, it advocates the right to private judgment and rejects the role of being the judge, jury, and executioner," the company said. "Unfortunately, too many of our fellow technology providers seem to differ in their position on this subject. ... SkySilk will support Parler in their efforts to be a nonpartisan Public Square."
Parler, for its part, tightened its community standards requirement so that its users can "Speak freely and express yourself openly, without fear of being 'deplatformed' for your views," within the context of Parler’s pledge that it "will not knowingly allow itself to be used as a tool for crime, civil torts, or other unlawful acts."
More broadly, investment is flowing into new services that bypass the supposedly monopolistic Facebook, Twitter, et al. As Zach Weissmueller reports for Reason:
But the great deplatforming of 2021 has also energized the movement to build a new, radically decentralized internet that would allow users to escape whatever form the Reality Czar takes. Many of the projects in this space are trying different approaches to solving the same set of problems, such as how to give individuals control over their own digital identities, and how to store data in the cloud so that it can't be controlled or accessed by a large company subject to political pressure from the state.
Examples of genuine monopolies include Medicare (for 65+ healthcare), the U.S. Post Office (for first class mail), and K-12 public schooling. None of the social media giants are that. This is just the beginning, but already we’re seeing the claim of the monopoly power of big social media platforms belied. In fact, the “great deplatforming” by the so-called "internet monopolies"--Facebook, Google, Twitter--is probably the high water mark for these companies’ “censorship” power. They are likely at the peak of their power, even as we speak. Their days of dominance, earned in the marketplace, are numbered--unless the government steps in to protect them -- which is the only way a genuine monopoly can exist.
The deplatforming by social media is morally wrong and will, and probably already is, backfire commercially. But there is another element that appears to be happening below the surface: they may also be victims of political extortion. I suspect something really sinister is behind the deplatforming of “right-wing” content. Several politicians, including Senator Dianne Feinstein and Representative Tom Malinowski, have openly threatened these companies with political--that is, gun-backed--legal retribution.
Who knows what other regulatory, Section 230, or antitrust threats these companies are facing behind the scenes by Leftist government officials. It’s government censorship-by-private-proxy. It’s quite scary. We should fight like hell to keep the government’s hands off of the internet.
Related Viewing:
YBS: Free Speech & The Internet (Social Media) with Onkar Ghate
Related Reading:
The Banning of Alex Jones: Facebook Choice or Regulatory Extortion?
Dem Rep Malinowski Reprises Trump in Proposed Legislative Attack on Social Media and Free Speech.
Individual Rights is the Solution to the Gay Marriage Conflict
Kim Davis vs. Liberty Ridge Farm
Gay Marriage: The Right to Voluntary Contract, Not to Coercive “Contract”—My article for The Objective Standard
Court Violates Cake Baker’s Right Not to Serve Gay Weddings—Ari Armstrong for The Objective Standard
‘Bigotry Motivated by Religion is Still Bigotry’—True, but Still an Individual Right
No comments:
Post a Comment