I'm with Sacks and Clarence Thomas on this one, Bari. Though I use a lot of Google services (and have an Android phone), their outright banning of the DeSantis discussion on YouTube is only the latest in a long line of outrageous actions on their part. Clarence Thomas is right, where do I go? Rumble? Having read about the snowflakes who work at Google (remember the James Damore incident?) , I don't want historically illiterate, 20-something Gen-Z employees deciding what I can and can't watch. Facebook and Twitter are just as bad, if not worse. Something has to be done to rein in these power-mad elites.
I am with Clarence Thomas. Public utility. In addition I would add political affiliation as a protected category - same as religious beliefs. Look at Gab. They are real free speech platform - yes hate speech is free speech. They were cancelled by banks, credit cards Apple, Google - all of them. This is wrong.
FWIW, Ryan Anderson’s book is available at the Apple book store. I bought it as soon as I read that amazon had banned it, not so much because I wanted it, but in the hope that I would be one among many, and that Apple would take the point that he who carries the banned book gets the coin. This liberal really, really, really hates censorship!
This problem goes much deeper and is much more sinister. Once a person is on a "platform", their speech, their thoughts, their likeness, their movements, their heart rate, their desires - their life is converted into data and is packaged and OWNED by the "platform". In order for me or anyone else to participate in any aspect of social life these days, one has to utilize one "platform" or another. The "cover charge" for entering this realm is one's life. Our public discourse for the most part is happening in a space that is owned by "platforms", which renders most of our public discourse private property that can be bought and sold.
Because of how ubiquitous these "platforms" are, they not only can decide what one sees, reads, hears, and experiences, but more importantly HOW one can experience and engage with the world. If your brain has been "twitterized" as a result of long term use, you will not be one for nuance, "bigger picture" view, context, facts, reason, or anything that cannot fit within the few seconds or a certain number of words. In the long run this aspect of it would have tremendously negative effect on humanity.
While the issue of freedom of speech is important, much broader question should be whether one can be allowed to function in this digitized world such as it is without having to relinquish their privacy and freedom?
One would think that in the twenty first century and infrastructure plan of a country that believes itself to be a world leader would focus on creating a public digital infrastructure that would allow for the online speech to be a public domain.
Legal professionals, historians, etc. overlook something regarding the First Amendment (and the nine that followed it.) Those amendments were proposed and adopted to pacify the anti-Federalists, led by Patrick Henry, who were afraid the Constitution would establish a monarchy. Those amendments were adopted to keep government in check. They also wanted to prevent government from being taken over by one particular group (as has happened today.) To them, Congress WAS THE PEOPLE and those amendments applied to the nation as a whole. After all, those amendments have since been applied to government at every level, not just the Federal.
As far as Big Tech goes, do as is done with everything - boycott them and don't use their products, don't buy their stock and don't repeat whatever some notable says on Twitter or Facebook. In fact, get off of them and let them implode.
You made some great points. It's timely irony that the so-called left is bootlicking major corporations while people on the right are the ones against them. It seems to be a major difference between populist and establishment.
Bari says: "Conservatives are supposed to be for small government and allergic to sweeping intervention. And yet some of the country’s most prominent Republicans find themselves arguing against free enterprise."
Not really - Republicans are against the concentration of market share in the hands of a few corporations. That is VERY different from arguing against free enterprise.
The solution to your problem is to declare the platform a public utility if the corporation owns more than 10% of the market share. But of course leftists will fight tooth and nail against the democratization of the market.
I've been following your for free for a little while, and just subscribed based on this story. I am truly delighted by your indecision on this issue - it mirrors my own almost exactly, and glad I'm not alone in my ambivalence.
On the one hand, big tech seems to be doing an awful job of policing themselves; on the other hand, I don't trust the government to police them one bit. Professor Epstein's common carrier approach is intriguing for another reason you didn't mention, though - it has a very long legal history, so there is a great deal of precedent to lean on. Legislators and lawmakers wouldn't have to make this stuff up as they go along.
Bari! Even though I am so much older than you I still tell people you are who I want to be when I grow up😀. You are so much of what this country needs right now and we are lucky to have you
The left is lead by the lowest common denominator. Many here may oppose censorship but y’all are too busy working, having families and being honest. The parasites running the DNC/DSA/BLM have no moral compass. Certainly the academic leftists do not value differing opinions. They teach the sub-literate detritus of our public schools to be intolerant bigots.
This piece reminded me that in Russia and other countries that make a mockery of democracy, the government often bans certain candidates from the only available media outlets. It’s a key indicator of an election that is not free. Yet last fall we weren’t that far from having one of the two major party candidates banned from several of our most important media outlets.
Another fantastic read. Thank you for this thoughtful dissection of both sides of the argument Bari.
I did not know that Dorsey has pivoted to admitting that censorship of the NY Post Hunter Biden article was wrong. It felt like election tampering to me from the get-go. How many people on the fence at the voting booth might have voted differently if they read that now substantiated story? We’ll never know...
Big Tech censoring and deplatforming people clearly needs to be addressed and other commenters on this post have done a good job of explaining the multiple reasons, using legal precedent, to do so. The truly alarming part of all of this is the obvious partnership between Big Tech and the Democratic Party. Democrats use Big Tech as their digital bullies to get rid of, and intimidate, dissidents, which is why Democrats currently debating this issue want more censorship from Big Tech. Big Tech's censorship of the NY Post Hunter Biden laptop story clearly had an impact on the election, so I guess the success of that move has emboldened Democratic politicians to go all in on assaulting free speech?? And I fear it's only going to get worse. See the link below to a story about someone on the Left who criticized AOC and was visited by police after someone reported to police that he threatened her life. How can this possibly be happening in America? Very few people want to live in a country like this...that's why so many people left their home countries to come to America.
Section 230 should be reformed, not repealed. It’s outdated and needs to incentivize good behavior from major corporations, more opportunity for innovators, and government needs to stop allowing bargaining with big business for special deals and immunity.
Once government gets in bed with big business, they become pseudo-private companies.
I'm with Sacks and Clarence Thomas on this one, Bari. Though I use a lot of Google services (and have an Android phone), their outright banning of the DeSantis discussion on YouTube is only the latest in a long line of outrageous actions on their part. Clarence Thomas is right, where do I go? Rumble? Having read about the snowflakes who work at Google (remember the James Damore incident?) , I don't want historically illiterate, 20-something Gen-Z employees deciding what I can and can't watch. Facebook and Twitter are just as bad, if not worse. Something has to be done to rein in these power-mad elites.
I am with Clarence Thomas. Public utility. In addition I would add political affiliation as a protected category - same as religious beliefs. Look at Gab. They are real free speech platform - yes hate speech is free speech. They were cancelled by banks, credit cards Apple, Google - all of them. This is wrong.
FWIW, Ryan Anderson’s book is available at the Apple book store. I bought it as soon as I read that amazon had banned it, not so much because I wanted it, but in the hope that I would be one among many, and that Apple would take the point that he who carries the banned book gets the coin. This liberal really, really, really hates censorship!
The big tech companies are evil incarnate. I detest the notion of hate speech and hate crimes.
This problem goes much deeper and is much more sinister. Once a person is on a "platform", their speech, their thoughts, their likeness, their movements, their heart rate, their desires - their life is converted into data and is packaged and OWNED by the "platform". In order for me or anyone else to participate in any aspect of social life these days, one has to utilize one "platform" or another. The "cover charge" for entering this realm is one's life. Our public discourse for the most part is happening in a space that is owned by "platforms", which renders most of our public discourse private property that can be bought and sold.
Because of how ubiquitous these "platforms" are, they not only can decide what one sees, reads, hears, and experiences, but more importantly HOW one can experience and engage with the world. If your brain has been "twitterized" as a result of long term use, you will not be one for nuance, "bigger picture" view, context, facts, reason, or anything that cannot fit within the few seconds or a certain number of words. In the long run this aspect of it would have tremendously negative effect on humanity.
While the issue of freedom of speech is important, much broader question should be whether one can be allowed to function in this digitized world such as it is without having to relinquish their privacy and freedom?
One would think that in the twenty first century and infrastructure plan of a country that believes itself to be a world leader would focus on creating a public digital infrastructure that would allow for the online speech to be a public domain.
Legal professionals, historians, etc. overlook something regarding the First Amendment (and the nine that followed it.) Those amendments were proposed and adopted to pacify the anti-Federalists, led by Patrick Henry, who were afraid the Constitution would establish a monarchy. Those amendments were adopted to keep government in check. They also wanted to prevent government from being taken over by one particular group (as has happened today.) To them, Congress WAS THE PEOPLE and those amendments applied to the nation as a whole. After all, those amendments have since been applied to government at every level, not just the Federal.
As far as Big Tech goes, do as is done with everything - boycott them and don't use their products, don't buy their stock and don't repeat whatever some notable says on Twitter or Facebook. In fact, get off of them and let them implode.
You made some great points. It's timely irony that the so-called left is bootlicking major corporations while people on the right are the ones against them. It seems to be a major difference between populist and establishment.
Bari says: "Conservatives are supposed to be for small government and allergic to sweeping intervention. And yet some of the country’s most prominent Republicans find themselves arguing against free enterprise."
Not really - Republicans are against the concentration of market share in the hands of a few corporations. That is VERY different from arguing against free enterprise.
The solution to your problem is to declare the platform a public utility if the corporation owns more than 10% of the market share. But of course leftists will fight tooth and nail against the democratization of the market.
I've been following your for free for a little while, and just subscribed based on this story. I am truly delighted by your indecision on this issue - it mirrors my own almost exactly, and glad I'm not alone in my ambivalence.
On the one hand, big tech seems to be doing an awful job of policing themselves; on the other hand, I don't trust the government to police them one bit. Professor Epstein's common carrier approach is intriguing for another reason you didn't mention, though - it has a very long legal history, so there is a great deal of precedent to lean on. Legislators and lawmakers wouldn't have to make this stuff up as they go along.
Bari! Even though I am so much older than you I still tell people you are who I want to be when I grow up😀. You are so much of what this country needs right now and we are lucky to have you
The left is lead by the lowest common denominator. Many here may oppose censorship but y’all are too busy working, having families and being honest. The parasites running the DNC/DSA/BLM have no moral compass. Certainly the academic leftists do not value differing opinions. They teach the sub-literate detritus of our public schools to be intolerant bigots.
This piece reminded me that in Russia and other countries that make a mockery of democracy, the government often bans certain candidates from the only available media outlets. It’s a key indicator of an election that is not free. Yet last fall we weren’t that far from having one of the two major party candidates banned from several of our most important media outlets.
Another fantastic read. Thank you for this thoughtful dissection of both sides of the argument Bari.
I did not know that Dorsey has pivoted to admitting that censorship of the NY Post Hunter Biden article was wrong. It felt like election tampering to me from the get-go. How many people on the fence at the voting booth might have voted differently if they read that now substantiated story? We’ll never know...
Big Tech censoring and deplatforming people clearly needs to be addressed and other commenters on this post have done a good job of explaining the multiple reasons, using legal precedent, to do so. The truly alarming part of all of this is the obvious partnership between Big Tech and the Democratic Party. Democrats use Big Tech as their digital bullies to get rid of, and intimidate, dissidents, which is why Democrats currently debating this issue want more censorship from Big Tech. Big Tech's censorship of the NY Post Hunter Biden laptop story clearly had an impact on the election, so I guess the success of that move has emboldened Democratic politicians to go all in on assaulting free speech?? And I fear it's only going to get worse. See the link below to a story about someone on the Left who criticized AOC and was visited by police after someone reported to police that he threatened her life. How can this possibly be happening in America? Very few people want to live in a country like this...that's why so many people left their home countries to come to America.
https://nypost.com/2021/04/10/ca-podcaster-gets-visit-from-police-after-aoc-tweet/
Section 230 should be reformed, not repealed. It’s outdated and needs to incentivize good behavior from major corporations, more opportunity for innovators, and government needs to stop allowing bargaining with big business for special deals and immunity.
Once government gets in bed with big business, they become pseudo-private companies.
Good piece.