Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Dianne Feinstein

Sen. Feinstein's Threat to 'Do Something' to Social Media Companies Is a Bigger Danger to Democracy Than Russia

Do not ignore the self-interest of elected officials in controlling online political messaging.

Scott Shackford | 11.3.2017 1:25 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
Dianne Feinstein
Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/Newscom

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) took the opportunity this week to remind social media companies that she's as authoritarian as President Donald Trump and isn't afraid to try to push people around.

Reason's Jacob Sullum and Jesse Walker have ably punctured the hysteria surrounding the Russian government's attempts to influence America's elections with really, really lame social media ads. The ads attempted to exploit our polarized electorate to Russia's advantage, and apparently some of our senators take issue with that.

Perhaps they don't like the competition? Feinstein certainly knows a thing or two about taking advantage of a polarized electorate. Perhaps that explains her Mafia-don approach this week when social media companies failed to kiss her ring sufficiently at a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing.

From The Verge:

Senators raised the stakes against some of America's biggest tech companies on Wednesday, telling them they must take more comprehensive action against foreign actors misusing their platforms. "You created these platforms…and now they're being misused," Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) told the top lawyers at Facebook, Google, and Twitter. "And you have to be the ones who do something about it—or we will."…

"We are not going to go away, gentlemen," Feinstein continued. "And this is a very big deal. I went home last night with profound disappointment. I asked specific questions, I got vague answers. And that just won't do. You have a huge problem on your hands. And the US is going to be the first of the countries to bring it to your attention, and other countries are going to follow I'm sure. Because you bear this responsibility."

Just imagine somebody saying this about the printing press. Actually, you don't have to imagine it: Powerful political figures did indeed abuse their authority (and continue to abuse their authority) to hold printing press owners responsible for how their "platforms" were "being misused."

Very little coverage of this conflict between the Senate and the social media companies seems interested in pointing out that lawmakers are not neutral, disinterested parties here. Any policy Feinstein might enact here could erect barriers for people using social media tools to challenge her position and power as a senator. Feinstein, it's worth noting, is running for re-election next year and has a personal stake in any policies that control how political speech is presented online. What sort of ads are going to pop up on Facebook and Twitter next year, and what will they be saying about her?

So look at those terrible Russian Facebook ads that try to exploit Americans' unhappiness about their government. And then look at Feinstein declaring that communication tools are being "misused" and must be regulated, possibly by her and other lawmakers unless the companies implement stronger censorship policies on their own. Which presents a greater threat to the proper, open functioning of American democracy?

By the way: This week, as part of this investigation into Russian meddling, Feinstein sent the CEO of Twitter a letter asking that he provide him with a bunch of records, including the content of private direct messages from Julian Assange and other Twitter users. No, she doesn't have a warrant.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Would Extremer Vetting Have Stopped This Week's Attack in Manhattan?

Scott Shackford is a policy research editor at Reason Foundation.

Dianne FeinsteinCensorshipSocial MediaTwitterRussiaElection 2016Political AdsFacebookSenateFree SpeechTechnology
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (95)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. Fuck =><= sevo   8 years ago

    Sure would be a shame if she had a stroke and put Her out of our misery.

  2. Sevo   8 years ago

    Ms. Feinstein, were YOU swayed to vote for Trump as a result of those ads?

    1. MarkLastname   8 years ago

      Of course not, what do you think she's a moron like the rest of us? That's why we elected her. We are sheep and she is our sheepdog.

      1. Sevo   8 years ago

        I do not know her (in either sense), but living in SF, I have been around her.
        Let's just say that no one of normal intelligence is going to be intimidated. She's not anywhere near as flat out stupid as Boxer or Pelosi, but you wouldn't go to her for advice on any subject I can think of.

      2. BestUsedCarSales   8 years ago

        It's sad that all those would-be Hillary voters were so stupid that they were swayed by pictures of Satan and Paul Rudd staring at each other.

      3. Mickey Rat   8 years ago

        You need to apologize to making such an unfair and prejuduced comparision.

        Come on, tell the sheepdogs you are sorry!

    2. Tony   8 years ago

      No but people exactly like you were. That's people who might say things like "I don't really like Trump, but at least he's not a serial murderer like Hillary."

      Of course you probably actually do think Trump is a credible president, right?

      1. Fuck =><= sevo   8 years ago

        I kind of love that this argument boils down to the idea that one can't decide on one's own that Hillary is detestable.

        1. Philadelphia Collins   8 years ago

          I was on the fence until Russia whispered in my ear.

        2. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   8 years ago

          I like how everyone who voted for trump was an erstwhile Hillary supporter.

        3. Tony   8 years ago

          You cannot rationally determine that Trump was better. We're talking about the presidency, and I think the way things have unfolded since Jan. 20 makes my case rather more than I even thought.

          1. Sevo   8 years ago

            Tony|11.3.17 @ 3:54PM|#
            "You cannot rationally determine that Trump was better."

            I can:
            Devos
            Gorsuch
            Ending the illegal payments to medical insurance companies
            "Competitive Enterprise Institute one month ago issued a report at the Trump administration's nine-month mark concluding that he is "the least regulatory president of all,"
            There's more, but hey, it's fun and easy! You can find them yourself!

            All good.
            And none of which would have been done by the hag.

            1. Tony   8 years ago

              If you're a right-wing Republican, just say so.

              1. Sevo   8 years ago

                Sorry I don't favor the teachers' unions running the schools for their benefit, 'penaltaxes, illegal payments, and a while pile of new regulations. If that makes me 'right-wing', well, that's fine by me.
                You, OTOH are a fucking lefty wing asshole; you have no need of saying so.

          2. Square = Circle   8 years ago

            I think the way things have unfolded since Jan. 20 makes my case rather more than I even thought.

            That's because you don't have an actual HRC presidency to compare it to, only your fantasy of what would have been.

          3. Tom Bombadil   8 years ago

            "I think the way things have unfolded since Jan. 20 makes my case rather more than I even thought."

            Yes, Hillary's words and actions since Jan. 20 have eased the minds of millions of people who leaned away from her.

      2. Sevo   8 years ago

        Tony|11.3.17 @ 2:15PM|#
        "No but people exactly like you were. That's people who might say things like "I don't really like Trump, but at least he's not a serial murderer like Hillary.""

        Yeah, Tony, it wasn't like any of the baggage she was lugging about suggested that someone might not vote for the hag.
        After you asked (yesterday) and I gave you the links for her baggage, I'm sure an honest person would have checked to see the response, so a miserable fucking slime-bag like you never did, right m-f-s-b?

        1. Tony   8 years ago

          I missed that. I'm sure it's all very credible and not overblown horseshit. Still it was a choice between two people.

          1. Sevo   8 years ago

            Tony|11.3.17 @ 3:56PM|#
            "I missed that. I'm sure it's all very credible and not overblown horseshit. Still it was a choice between two people."
            No, it was a choice between at least three; I voted for Johnson, but I'm thrilled you, the hag and her baggage get to stamp your feet and act like 5 year-olds for years on end.
            Simply proves what has long been obvious regarding proggies.

      3. Jordan   8 years ago

        That's people who might say things like "I don't really like Trump, but at least he's not a serial murderer like Hillary."

        If such a person actually exists, so what? People have believed outlandish conspiracies about politicians since time immemorial, long before Putin came along.

        1. Square = Circle   8 years ago

          "I don't really like Clinton, but at least she's not a serial rapist who can't wait to use nukes."

          1. Tony   8 years ago

            ... The obviously more rational position.

  3. Magnitogorsk   8 years ago

    "We're going to open up those free speech laws so when the Russians post a meme which is a total disgrace, we can sue them and win lots of money" - Dianold Trumpstein

  4. ChipToBeSquare   8 years ago

    Government is the mafia masquerading as a human rights organization

  5. Enjoy Every Sandwich   8 years ago

    I'm sure it will be a waste of time to ask the good senator to point out where in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution the Congress is given authority to do that.

    1. Longtobefree   8 years ago

      It is in the same part where it says 'separation of church and state'

      But yeah, she doesn't know that.

  6. Mickey Rat   8 years ago

    We a have a Senator with a decades long track record, yet Trump is the standard to measure her authoritarianism by.

    1. Fuck =><= sevo   8 years ago

      How many MegaTrumps does she measure out to?

      1. Mickey Rat   8 years ago

        Apparently, just a single Trump.

        1. Fuck =><= sevo   8 years ago

          Weak.

  7. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   8 years ago

    This whole social media thing is really awful, and from what I've been hearing in the media, and the way the media is treating it, it's bizarre, and largely uncritical. I'm hearing shockingly few news outlets even mention the first amendment in their reporting. I'm hearing squabbling about whether or not Facebook is a "media company". Last night, NPR described how the social media companies see themselves as private platforms beyond the reach of regulations, but legislators increasingly see them as public squares.

    Here's an article I came across today, which isn't based in the US so there are no 1st amendment issues, but the entire tone of the article-- and the solutions it proffers are so awful, it's hard to stomach.

    A potential solution to this species of fake news is to create new platforms ? like federated social networks ? that do not rely on advertising revenue and, by extension, the economic incentives that force Facebook and other proprietary social networks to optimize for clicks and ignore user privacy to more effectively serve ads.[...]

    1. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   8 years ago

      NPR and an array of other publicly minded companies could focus on developing a trusted social media platform, but as we highlight below, the BBC has already cultivated the technological and social capital required for a trusted social networking platform and could serve as a possible model for what could be built.

      1. Tony   8 years ago

        I appreciate the first amendment as much as anyone, but in order to do so you must also believe that speech has power (otherwise why is it worth protecting?), and propaganda is one form of powerful speech.

        Is your position that yes it's possible for foreign governments to propagandize Americans for their own nefarious interests, but there's nothing we can or should do about it?

        1. Mickey Rat   8 years ago

          Of course speech has power, that is the very reason for limiting the government's authority over speech.

          1. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   8 years ago

            Of course speech has power, that is the very reason for limiting

            You misspelled "eliminating".

        2. Fuck =><= sevo   8 years ago

          No, this was answered hundreds of years ago.

          You counter it with more speech.

          "something something HIGH TECH PROPAGANDA THESE DAYS IS DIFFERENT DERP!"

          1. Sevo   8 years ago

            "something something HIGH TECH PROPAGANDA THESE DAYS IS DIFFERENT DERP!"

            Well, the poor DNC and the hag's staff didn't have a spare couple of hundred to pay some kids to counter that stuff.
            It's just UNFAIR! How could they ever counter such sophisticated ads?

          2. Tony   8 years ago

            Propaganda has always been around, and technology has made it more powerful. It's not not a thing. I'm not saying it's an easy issue for a free-speech absolutist like me, but it's worth paying attention to, since propaganda has even caused genocides.

            1. Sevo   8 years ago

              Tony|11.3.17 @ 3:57PM|#
              "...It's not not a thing. I'm not saying it's an easy issue for a free-speech absolutist like me,..."

              You're a laugh a minute, you are.

              1. Square = Circle   8 years ago

                "Now, I'm a free-speech absolutist, but . . ."

                1. Sevo   8 years ago

                  You've done far better by capturing the negative "but". Everything earlier is so much smoke.

        3. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   8 years ago

          I appreciate the first amendment as much as anyone, but

          *drinks*

          you must also believe that speech has power (otherwise why is it worth protecting?), and propaganda is one form of powerful speech.

          So... *rubbing my temples* your position is that because speech has power, we need powerful gatekeepers to ban or police particularly powerful speech that might have power in undesirable ways to the people in power?

          Is your position that yes it's possible for foreign governments to propagandize Americans for their own nefarious interests, but there's nothing we can or should do about it?

          My position is that in a country where there's truly free speech, you may occasionally hear speech from unsourced or unsourcable persons and organizations, and the laughable notion that it can be vetted, controlled and appropriately blocked by unaccountable bureaucrats with three ring binders is laughably stupid- and horrifyingly scary.

          1. Tony   8 years ago

            My position is that propaganda is every bit a threat to civilized society as terrorism, crime, natural disaster, or what have you. The Rwandan genocide happened because of propaganda. Nazi Germany happened because of propaganda. Trump happened because of propaganda. You can't simply dismiss it.

            1. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   8 years ago

              You can only combat propaganda with more free speech. There is no other tool.

              1. Tony   8 years ago

                Tell that to the Jews.

                1. Jordan   8 years ago

                  Which Jews? The ones who lived under a government that persecuted them for their speech? I'll bet they think highly of the Thought Police.

                  1. Tony   8 years ago

                    And the Tutsi. Victims of genocide caused by mass hysteria caused by propaganda.

                    It's somewhat more than shouting fire in a crowded theater. I'm not saying I have the policy solution, I'm just saying you are allowed to ponder the problem even if it did help elect a Republican this time.

                    1. Square = Circle   8 years ago

                      And the Tutsi. Victims of genocide caused by mass hysteria caused by propaganda.

                      Holy shit you are shameless.

                      Please educate yourself on the history of Rwanda and Burundi and the history of Tutsi-Belgian cooperation in oppressing the Hutu.

                      I'm not saying the genocide was justifiable, but to toss it off as "the effects of evil propaganda" is just painfully ignorant.

                      Same with Nazi Germany - if you think the only thing going on there was "propaganda can make people do awful things" you are truly more stupid and ignorant than I thought even just a few minutes ago.

                    2. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   8 years ago

                      Same with Nazi Germany - if you think the only thing going on there was "propaganda can make people do awful things" you are truly more stupid and ignorant than I thought even just a few minutes ago.

                      Somehow, Tony zooms past the point that the government in Nazi Germany controlled speech... something he wants for this country. But somehow, our government, including the one that Donald Trump is in charge of, will control it correctly and only benevolently.

                      The cognitive dissonance is breathtaking.

                    3. Tony   8 years ago

                      Did I say only?

                    4. Sevo   8 years ago

                      Tony|11.3.17 @ 4:40PM|#
                      "And the Tutsi. Victims of genocide caused by mass hysteria caused by propaganda."

                      Yeah, it would have been helpful to have other views presented, wouldn't it, you ignorant piece of shit.

                2. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   8 years ago

                  Tell that to the Jews.

                  If only they'd have had free speech. And a second amendment would have been nice.

            2. Sevo   8 years ago

              Tony|11.3.17 @ 3:59PM|#
              "My position is that propaganda is every bit a threat to civilized society as terrorism, crime, natural disaster, or what have you"

              And here just a minute ago, you were a "free-speech absolutist". How........
              pathetic.

              1. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   8 years ago

                No he wasn't, he said he "appreciated it it, but..."

                That's not even on the free speech property.

                1. Square = Circle   8 years ago

                  Tony|11.3.17 @ 3:57PM|#

                  Propaganda has always been around, and technology has made it more powerful. It's not not a thing. I'm not saying it's an easy issue for a free-speech absolutist like me, but it's worth paying attention to, since propaganda has even caused genocides.

        4. ChipToBeSquare   8 years ago

          You've convinced me. I now support using government force to crush businesses who tolerate some level of free speech on their platform

          1. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   8 years ago

            Except they're not crushing businesses. They're enlisting them.

      2. Sevo   8 years ago

        "NPR and an array of other publicly minded companies could focus on developing a trusted social media platform,"

        focus =/= deliver

    2. Mickey Rat   8 years ago

      I suspect newspape s and broadcast media are looking at it as a way to shackle the competition from social media. Therw wad a video advI saw on YouTube ladt night which had a rant on it, that if social media platforms cannot prevent foreigners from "weaponizing" their platforms then they shpuld shut themgselves down, lest they involuntarily commit treason. The presenter then used the New York Times of all things as an example of the tupe of mefia company that properly vets its content to "protect our democracy". The whole thing wad rather unsettling in tone, attitude and sanctimony.

      1. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   8 years ago

        It's absolutely what they're doing, if not a large part of it. The old media organizations see an opportunity here. Re-define Facebook/Twitter et al as "media companies" which, in some weird kind of logic will cause them to be subject to government regulations and oversight as to what they can publish, yet these regulations and oversight somehow won't apply to them.

        It makes me want to fucking fistfight nearly every journalist I hear reporting on this.

        They're backing themselves into a corner. But again, I have to remember these are the same organizations which breathlessly follow twitter accounts and treat them Real News and valid sources. So I don't think 1 dimensional checkers is really their forte.

        1. Rich   8 years ago

          these are the same organizations which breathlessly follow twitter accounts and treat them [as] Real News

          Hey, it's more cost-effective than investigative reporting!

      2. Rhywun   8 years ago

        the New York Times of all things as an example of the tupe of mefia company that properly vets its content

        That's hilarious. We're not shilling for Team Blue, paying no attention to vast swaths of actually important news, and on occasion flat-out lying... we're "vetting our content".

    3. ATXChappy   8 years ago

      Have you watch the two part PBS Frontline series Putin's Revenge? I usually find their reporting pretty unbiased. Not so much on this one. It did have some good points about why Putin would try to hurt HRC. But, I felt sick to my stomach when they implied that Sputnik and RT promoted 'fake news' about her health. She's on camera passing out and falling face first. And, admitted that it happened. And, they are trying to convince me that it was a fake Russian conspiracy. WTF!?!?!

      http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/

    4. CE   8 years ago

      News media companies think they get special First Amendment rights, because they have a printing press in the lobby as a museum piece.

  8. Fist of Etiquette   8 years ago

    At long last, has she left no sense of decency?

    1. CE   8 years ago

      Nice website you got there. Be a shame if something happened to it after you run some anti-Democrat ads.

  9. Rich   8 years ago

    "You created these platforms...and now they're being misused," Sen. Dianne Feinstein [said.]

    "But enough about the Founding Fathers and the Houses of Congress."

    1. Rich   8 years ago

      "And tags are being misused, too!"

  10. GILMORE?   8 years ago

    Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) took the opportunity this week to remind social media companies that she's as authoritarian as President Donald Trump and isn't afraid to try to push people around.

    by this standard, isn't every single political character 'authoritarian'? it seems like you're adopting the lingo of the #Resist! types simply to appeal to the hysterical posturing du-jour.

    while i'm not any more of a fan of politicians than anyone else here, please don't go confusing "authoritarianism" with "moral suasion" (aka Jawboning)

    Jawboning

    "Jawboning" or "moral suasion" in economics and politics is an unofficial tec- hnique of public and private discussions and arm-twisting, which may work by the implicit threat of future government regulation.

    Sure, everyone can pose 'more anarchist than thou' and say that anytime a person in power attempts to wield the power of that office, its "Authoritarian, man".

    but once you go down that road, when it comes time to point the finger at shit like, oh, the White House wiretapping US citizens (gasp! - journalists, even)? people just yawn and go, "well, like, everyone does that" and pretends its c'est normale for the political class to live above the law. Diluting definitions - see: "racism" - strips terms of power.

    1. CE   8 years ago

      Jawboning is fine. Talk and opine all you want. But don't threaten constitutionally illegal crackdowns when things don't go your way.

      1. GILMORE?   8 years ago

        but don't threaten constitutionally illegal crackdowns

        Thats the point; of course they'll "threaten". Its not proper 'authoritarianism' until they fucking TRY. And the point is that everyone in the business of doing business has been putting up with unconstitutional yammering threats from Pols about what "Should" be done in reaction to some hysterically-exaggerated threat *forever*. The only reason people like Shakes wake up to this obviousness is that now 'the media' is being exposed to the same sort of bullshit rhetoric that the Financial and Healthcare and Energy industries have put up with forever.

        and i'm not saying jawboning is a wonderful thing - just as saying 'racists aren't Nazis' isn't saying anything nice about racists OR nazis. Its just that they're downgrading 'Authoritarianism' to describe everything... being able to distinguish categories of political behavior would seem to be a bare minimum for political commentators

        1. GILMORE?   8 years ago

          the same sort of bullshit rhetoric that the Financial and Healthcare and Energy and Firearms industries have put up with forever.

          maybe even clearer

          1. Sevo   8 years ago

            Point taken.
            If we are to beat on Feinstein, Trump also gets the bitch-slap regarding who is allowed to print what.

  11. BYODB   8 years ago

    I'd love to hear the Democrats critique the Obama administration since they tried to 'reset' relations and, by all their current rhetoric, that would appear to be what opened the door to all this 'espionage' or whatever you want to call it. I mean, if Obama hadn't told all of us that Russia was our friend now would we have treated them as such?

    /sarc

    This whole issue has be convinced that all of America is populated with retards and children who are incapable of rational thought. The idea put forward that American's, or even humanity in general, has grown beyond mass hysteria and simple propaganda is clearly gravely wrong.

    This is the most clearly transparent effort at manipulation by our government that I have seen in my lifetime. We live in an age of propaganda, and if you speak out against it you're likely to see harm because of it; directly or indirectly. Possibly even from a literal police state apparatus. Hooray, we're more like Europe now than America.

  12. Rich   8 years ago

    "We are not going to go away, gentlemen," Feinstein continued.

    "Who's this 'we', white woman?"

  13. CE   8 years ago

    What sort of ads are going to pop up on Facebook and Twitter next year, and what will they be saying about her?

    "This is how liberty dies... under Senator Palpatine's jack boot?

  14. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   8 years ago

    In a weird meta-way, this kind of is the story of the year. Not the Russians meddling, but the media's reporting of Russia's meddling. It's a fascinating-- and horrifying expose of the collective mind-hive of our traditional media.

  15. Stormy Dragon   8 years ago

    Just imagine somebody saying this about the printing press.

    Like the actual Catholic Church when the printing press was actually invented?

  16. Stormy Dragon   8 years ago

    To some extent, this is the social media companies' own Frankenstein monster coming back for them.

    The spent the last 20 years replacing the decentralized, federated internet with a series of wall gardens that would give them centralized control over what their users see and hear. And now they're surprised that having created that centralized control, the state wants a say in how it's used.

    1. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   8 years ago

      Kind of. The government likes the walled garden, and hates the old federated internet. Once the walled gardens showed up, the Feinsteins of the world are now breathing a collective sigh of relief because now they have a single-point-of-origin that they can put their regulatory finger on.

      As I said before, everyone from government, to media, to the social-networking companies themselves see this as a major opportunity.

  17. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   8 years ago

    He has also promised to crack down on harassment and abuse more aggressively in an attempt to counter a widely-perceived safety problem.

    Seeing tweets you don't like is a 'safety problem'?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/tec.....ke-profit/

  18. Longtobefree   8 years ago

    Well, the bill of rights is already subject to 'common sense regulation'; why not the first?
    Not sarcasm, honest question. Why is the part of the first amendment relating to freedom of speech more off limits than the second amendment? Cite a legal difference.
    Thanks you.

    1. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   8 years ago

      I think that's the essential argument that both legislators and the media are now essentially making. The left has been making this argument increasingly over the last couple of decades so... not sure what to say beyond that.

  19. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   8 years ago

    Scene: A top aide from Sen. Feinstein's office stops a flustered Mark Zuckerberg in the hallway while the Senate hearings on Russian meddling is in recess.

    Aide: Mr. Zuckerberg, Senator Feinstein sent me here to have a word with you.. you know, outside the formality of the hearings.

    *Zuckerberg doesn't say anything but just stares back at the aide through a narrowed gaze*

    Aide: Mr. Zuckerberg... Mark, can I call you Mark? Step over here a minute. *gestures to a secluded ante-chamber.

    Zuckerberg: Look, we're already policing hate speech as much as we can, but I take umbrage at...

    Aide: Mark... you're seeing this all wrong. All that in the hearings? That's just for show... that's Senator Feinstein's show cards, man! Everything's cool. You just gotta listen to what we're really offering.

    Zuckerberg: Ok, what are you really offering? *makes air quotes when he says 'really'*

    Aide: *lowers his voice* Senator Feinstein... and, well really everyone in there, less a few right-wingers... we want a partner on this deal, we want you to be our partner on this.

    Zuckerberg: I'm listening.

    1. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   8 years ago

      Aide: Look, it's like this-- you agree to a few minor points *hands Zuckerberg two page printed powerpoint* and you... YOU Mr. Zuckerberg, will be able to control the news and information content, and be a kind of editorial gatekeeper for hundreds of millions... possibly billions of citizens, worldwide...

      A few moments of silence passes, and then a smile slowly spreads across Zuckerberg's face.

  20. Tony   8 years ago

    We could just do the normal test. Pretend the Russians helped get Hillary elected. Now consider the question.

    1. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   8 years ago

      Now consider the question.

      Who in Russia to we nominate for a Nobel Peace Prize?

    2. Jordan   8 years ago

      If a handful of shitty Facebook memes caused Hillary to lose, then she deserved it.

      1. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   8 years ago

        And by the logic, they swayed Hillary voters to go with Trump. Double plus deserved it.

      2. Tony   8 years ago

        The electoral college is most at fault.

        1. TrickyVic (old school)   8 years ago

          ""The electoral college is most at fault."'

          When you enter into a competition and know the rules, you are an idiot to blame the rules for your loss. You agreed to them when you entered the race.

        2. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   8 years ago

          So facebook memes caused them to vote based on their mandate?

        3. Sevo   8 years ago

          Tony|11.3.17 @ 4:25PM|#
          "The electoral college is most at fault."

          Darn that constitution! We should just trash it so our resident 5-YO loser doesn't have to stamp his feet!

      3. TrickyVic (old school)   8 years ago

        ""If a handful of shitty Facebook memes caused Hillary to lose, then she deserved it.""

        Exactly.

    3. Square = Circle   8 years ago

      Pretend the Russians helped get Hillary elected. Now consider the question.

      Yup - still stupid.

  21. patskelley   8 years ago

    Or we could educate people how to recognize propaganda, of course that wouldn't be good for marketing. What's the balance point between crazy?

  22. imo   8 years ago

    imo for pcimo appimo appsnaptube for pcsnaptube app

  23. imo   8 years ago

    imo for pcimo appimo appsnaptube for pcsnaptube app

  24. Gozer the Gozarian   8 years ago

    Apparently Vaginstein hasn't read the DMCA she voted for. Those companies, by law, are not responsible for the content on their sites.

    Maybe her elevator isn't going to the top floor anymore.

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

Bob Menendez Does Not Deserve a Pardon

Billy Binion | 5.30.2025 5:25 PM

12-Year-Old Tennessee Boy Arrested for Instagram Post Says He Was Trying To Warn Students of a School Shooting

Autumn Billings | 5.30.2025 5:12 PM

Texas Ten Commandments Bill Is the Latest Example of Forcing Religious Texts In Public Schools

Emma Camp | 5.30.2025 3:46 PM

DOGE's Newly Listed 'Regulatory Savings' for Businesses Have Nothing to Do With Cutting Federal Spending

Jacob Sullum | 5.30.2025 3:30 PM

Wait, Lilo & Stitch Is About Medicaid and Family Separation?

Peter Suderman | 5.30.2025 1:59 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!