The First Amendment prohibits the government from interfering with free speech. Nothing stops the tech oligarchs because they are private companies.
This is wrong and must change.
As a rule, I am against giving the government more power, but in this case it is necessary (and overdue). In the modern age, allowing the tech companies to regulate speech on their so-called platforms is as absurd as allowing AT&T to regulate what you say on the phone, or the post office to regulate what you can say in a letter. The difference is a regulatory fiction that has to be eliminated.
A standard pro-market response would be to say that if one company does something people don’t like, they can take their business elsewhere. That kind of simplistic answer is entirely insufficient for this situation. We wouldn’t accept that logic with the phone carriers. We take it as given that the phone companies can’t regulate what you say. We need to have the same attitude towards online methods of communication.
The tech companies need to be regulated immediately.
Today will be a rare day in two ways. First, I am calling for more government regulation, and second, I find myself in agreement with the World Leaders [who] Denounce Big Tech Censorship of President Donald Trump.
We cannot leave it to American Big Tech to decide how we can or cannot discuss online. Today’s mechanisms destroy the compromise searching and consensus-building that are crucial in free and democratic societies. We need a stricter regulatory approach.
The hypocrisy of the tech oligarchs is astonishing, but they get away with it all the time.
In Russia, the opposition leader, Alexey Navalny, who is an outspoken anti-corruption campaigner, said he believed the ban was an unacceptable form of censorship and was based not on a genuine need but rather Twitter’s political preferences.
In a thread posted on the platform on Jan. 10, Navalny said: “Don’t tell me he was banned for violating Twitter rules. I get death threats here every day for many years, and Twitter doesn’t ban anyone.”
As private citizens, the tech oligarchs are free to contradict themselves and have absurd and inconsistent standards however they like, but the management of companies of the size and reach we’re discussing can’t be left to private whims. Otherwise, why have laws against monopolies?
And that brings us to the real bottom line here. We oppose monopolies because they exercise too much economic power. They can charge absurd rates for service and keep others out of the market, and we rightly object to that.
Here’s the gut check. Do we value economic power more than we value free speech? To say that Twitter, as a private company, can ban speech, so long as they don’t have monopoly power in the market, is to say that money is more important than ideas. I reject that. I don’t want companies to have too much power in the market, but I am far more concerned with companies having too much power in the marketplace of ideas.
One of the (many) reasons I’m a conservative and not a libertarian is because I think there can be situations which don’t fit nicely onto the Procrustean bed of libertarian thinking. It seems a priori possible that for society to work — in practice, not on paper — certain things will need to be encouraged or discouraged collectively, and law is one mechanism to do that.
On Big Tech, a few months ago there was a discussion between Misesian anarchocapitalist Tom Woods and tradcon Dan McCarthy of Modern Age (I think I might have mentioned this conv. before). Woods had to concede that in situations with concentrated and weaponized private power, the libertarian answer didn’t sound very persuasive, even if it’s the one he’s morally committed to because of the nonaggression principle.
One thing we could start with is to stop letting tech companies get away with being both platforms and publishers depending on their mood. When they don’t want to accept responsibility for content, they’re a platform: blame the user, it’s not their fault. When they want to exercise power, of course, they’re a publisher: it’s their right to publish or not as they see fit.
“in situations with concentrated and weaponized private power, the libertarian answer didn’t sound very persuasive.”
That sounds fair, although I’d take it up a notch from “doesn’t sound very persuasive” to “is not workable.”
The section 230 solution might be a way forward, but the tech titans are so arrogant, and so secure in their arrogance, I think something else might be necessary.
Along these lines: The Destruction of Parler Exposes One of the Biggest U.S. Shams…
Ok, Crowhill, pre-roll your eyes… Got them rolled yet? Saw on FB and agree with the sentiment: “Imagine believing people have a right to Twitter but not to healthcare.”
Which built civilization. Ideas and information, or health care?
Twitter built civilization? As far as I can tell, it tore it down. I imagine a better world if there was no social media.
Sorry if I wasn’t clear. An open marketplace of ideas built civilization, and the freer the better.
You were clear, and I understood. Being banned from Twitter is not the end of the world. I don’t know of any other Repug politician banned from Twitter except orange bozo…except his @POTUS account isn’t blocked. Just @realDonaldTrump.
And, he has a whole room where he can have a press conference anytime he wants. He doesn’t even need a room. He has a press secretary who gets paid 6 figures a year to lie, but she’s been silent. Pay me six figures to do nothing, please.
I do agree that the FATG should be considered either providers or publishers and not allowed to have the benefits of both and none of the downsides of either.
Banning Trump is, IMO, a small issue. Big tech has gotten way too brazen and arrogant.
This is relevant: The ‘Common Carrier’ Solution to Social-Media Censorship
For balance, the “standard” response: https://www.aier.org/article/on-richard-epstein-on-regulating-big-tech/
It feels somewhat rote, IMO.
The weirdest difference… whether it’s trains or AT&T, is that you pay to use them…buy a train ticket or pay AT&T monthly. For social media, the users don’t pay. Can you force someone to give something for free? If I give my neighbor a coke, can some kid from three streets over come to my house and demand a coke?
OTOH, nothing is free. It’s the advertisers who pay…because we let the social media companies use our personal data. Or, another argument could be made that users pay not with money but with personal data.
IDK how much of this is driven from the top of the social media companies but rather from the employees. Did you ever listen to Rogan’s interview with @jack from Twitter last year or in 2019? One thing was clear was that they have standards of conduct and the only thing that kept Trump on the platform was because he was president. The rules he explained were rather clear and reasonable. He had broken all of their codes of conduct. But the cynical person should inquire how much money do they make from Trump? How much revenue does he generate (through engagement) on Twitter. IDK? I don’t see how Twitter even makes money. I never engage with their ads.