Reason Roundup

Gab Dumped by Tech Companies Over Synagogue Shooter Posts but Twitter, Facebook, and Other Social-Media Giants Get a Pass: Reason Roundup

Plus: Brazil's worrisome new president, the long-tail of the housing crisis, and Brett Kavanaugh's replacement

|

@getongab/Twitter

Social media selectively blamed for threats and violence. On Saturday, a man opened fire at Pittsburgh's Tree of Life synagogue, killing 11 people while shouting slurs about Jews. According to the online trail he left behind, the shooter—46-year-old Robert Bowers—disliked Donald Trump because he thought the president was "a globalist, not a nationalist" and beholden to Jewish interests. Bowers sometimes posted this and other deranged, anti-Semitic comments to the social-media platform Gab—which says it has been "work[ing] tirelessly with the FBI and DOJ on this case over the past two days to ensure justice is served."

Meanwhile, information about the online life of the "MAGA bomber" has also been trickling out. Cesar Sayoc Jr., the 56-year-old man behind last week's wave of psuedo-pipebomb mailings, was apparently quite active on Twitter and Facebook, where he posted increasingly out-of-touch and anti-Democrat screeds and memes for years before sending at least 14 potentially explosive packages to prominent liberals such as the Clintons, Barack Obama, George Soros, and Robert de Niro.

The New York Times found numerous instances of Sayoc sending Twitter threats. And at least one person reported these threats to the company but was ignored. In contrast, Bowers—despite many distasteful posts on Gab—does not seem to have directly threatened anyone before going on his murderous rampage.

Guess which social-media platform is taking more heat…

Despite the fact that Twitter and Facebook are just as "complicit" in enabling Sayoc as Gab is in giving voice to Bowers, payment processing companies have not been pulling their services from these social giants and supposedly enlightened liberal voices haven't been calling for their demise—yet Gab is getting both.

Web hosting company GoDaddy dropped Gab, giving it just 24 hours to find a new host or be disappeared from the web. As a result, Gab has temporarily gone down. The company posted the following statement yesterday:

Since Saturday, cloud company Joyent, payment processors PayPal and Stripe, and blogging platform Medium have all ceased doing business with Gab. "When a site is allowing the perpetuation of hate, violence or discriminatory intolerance, we take immediate and decisive action," said PayPal spokesman Justin Higgs in a statement.

Gab's temporary demise has spawned gleefully idiotic gloating from certain "progressive" and "anti-fascist" circles, which seem unconcerned that Gab is getting different treatment than its more entrenched and establishment competitors.

Gab has a reputation as a Trump-friendly platform and has long attracted anger, revulsion, and mockery for embracing the alt-right and anyone shunted from other social sites. Gab's treatment this weekend compared to the treatment of bigger and just-as-hate-filled platforms makes it abundantly clear that this isn't actually about stopping "hate speech" or holding social platforms "accountable" so much as shutting down a disfavored platform.

Those cheering now won't be doing so for long. The more that web platforms and tools are treated as synonymous with the speakers of the content they broker, the more that radicals right and left, social justice causes, and marginalized communities of all sorts will be shut out of the conversation.

FREE MINDS

Trump is considering Neomi Rao, administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, to replace Brett Kavanaugh on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. "The judges of the D.C. Circuit can have an extraordinary impact over the direction of the country," notes Axios' Jonathan Swan. "Because of this, people often refer to the D.C. Circuit as the second-most powerful court in the United States, behind only the Supreme Court."

FREE MARKETS

Americans are staying put. U.S. homeowners are staying in their houses for the longest stretches on record, according to MarketWatch. More:

Across the country, homes that sold in the third quarter of this year had been owned an average of 8.23 years, according to an analysis from Attom Data Solutions. That's almost double the length of time a home sold in 2000, when Attom's data begin, had been owned.

It's partly the long tail of the housing crisis that's created stagnant conditions and a less dynamic housing market, Attom spokesman Daren Blomquist told MarketWatch.

As of the second quarter, 2.2 million homeowners were still underwater on their mortgages, meaning they owe more to their lending institution than the home is worth, according to data from CoreLogic. Another 550,000 have 5% equity or less, meaning that if that property were to be sold the transaction costs, such as a real-estate agent's commission, would likely leave the homeowner with nothing.

QUICK HITS

  • Brazil has elected far-right figure Jair Bolsonaro as its next president. Trump is pleased. Those who care about human rights, not so much.
  • Kanye West's new "Blexit" campaign urges blacks to leave the Democratic Party.
  • Broke: gender studies departments. Woke:

CORRECTION: This post initially identified Bowers as a supporter of the group QAnon though he appears to have been somewhat critical of the group.

NEXT: 4 More States Could Legalize Medical or Recreational Marijuana Next Week

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they 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 for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Social media selectively blamed for threats and violence.

    Some day things will cycle around to automatically blaming the actual person.

    1. if only social media would let us

    2. If Youtube hadn’t pushed so many groups like this away, someone may have been able to prevent this by alerting authorities. I’d never even heard of ‘gab’ until this morning.

    3. Hello.

      “Bowers sometimes posted these and other deranged, anti-Semitic comments to the social-media platform”

      So no different than left-wing progressives who spew anti-semitism, right? I mean, Farrakhan flaunts his racism in a mocking manner now and still the gutless jerk offs at Twitter don’t touch him.

      Gofuckdaddy….and PayPal. Also cowards of the faux-righteous kind.

  2. Meanwhile, information about the online life of the “MAGA bomber” has also been trickling out.

    This story is all but officially out of the news cycle.

  3. Michael Moore has footage of Cesar Soyac

    Hold on to your foil hats. Michael Moore has footage of Cesar Soyac chanting down CNN.

  4. Web hosting company GoDaddy dropped Gab, giving it just 24 hours to find a new host or be disappeared from the web.

    They can even unperson fellow tech companies? That’s cold.

    1. Nothing like some good ol’ 3rd party government tyranny.

  5. “where he posted increasingly out-of-touch and anti-Democrat screeds and memes”

    So now apparently is the time to clamp down on 1A? I guess only certain screeds are objectionable. I mean Louis Fucking Farrakhan is still on social media.

    Reason is a freaking joke!

    1. Obviously the shooter’s screed was okay.

      Killing those eleven Jewish people must have crossed a line though.

      1. Gab’s a game-changer if it actually allows you to reach out across the internet and kill people. Who’s the CEO of Gab, William Gibson?

        1. Sutter Cane

      2. We know Lefties always have a final solution.

      3. So if he used a bull horn to communicate his trash talk we ban all bull horns? Why do you frequent a libertarian site?

        1. Right wing bullhorns at the very least

          1. And assault bullhorns – does anybody other than law enforcement and the military NEED to make loud claxon noises?

        2. I’m not for banning anything, you imbecile.

          The “line” I am referring to is the line Gab’s business partners drew. Leave it as a matter for private companies to resolve?

          Why the fuck are you here, you wingnut?

        3. Buttplugger would stand them against the wall and execute them if he could.

  6. Good coverage ENB.

    Better headline:

    Right-wing social network Gab.com goes offline after Pittsburgh synagogue shooting

    https://goo.gl/V5CASq

    1. That noise you just heard was ENB’s point whizzing by way over your head…?.

      1. MOVE THOSE GOAL POSTS!

        See how easy it is to post a meaningless non sequitur?

        1. ^ OMFG He still doesn’t get it!!!

        2. Did you actually read what she wrote? All the way to the end?

          1. I’m not “cheering” the shutdown of Gab, you moron.

            I think you wingnuts should have a place to vent.

            1. You don’t even know what os going on!! Loloolol

            2. Actually, you were cheering the shutdown of Gab, but that’s not what I said.

              And calling someone who calls you out a wingnut is the typical refuge of a political zealot ninny. “I have nothing of substance to respond to you with so I’ll just call you a name”. Particularly since I argue with the rightists here regularly as well.

              I wonder if Reason is worried about getting shut down because they published your anti-Muslim screed yesterday?

              1. Actually, you were cheering the shutdown of Gab

                Bullshit.

                That is why you and Tulpa are so confused (again).

                You obviously don’t know me. I LOVE hate speech. I am a solid proponent of hate speech. I am an Open Society advocate.

                (about 99% of my hate speech is directed toward religion/superstition)

                1. “That is why you and Tulpa”

                  Name checking me this much means I am obviously getting to you by pointing out that you’re a leftist.

                  It’s why you keep lying about me, I’m right about you and you hate it!

              2. your anti-Muslim screed yesterday?

                It was an anti-Islam screed.

                Islam is a belief system which subjects people to tyranny.

            3. Haha, I doubt you will ever understand free speech.

  7. Kanye West’s Pro-Republican ‘Blexit’ T-Shirts Call for Black Exodus From Democratic Party/a>

    Oh SHIT! Black people talking about being free from the Democratic Party? This does not bode well for Democrats letting their slaves decide who to vote for.

    BTW: Check out some of the comments. Interesting Black folk racism.

    1. Don’t fear for the Democratic party, they’ve got fresh voters dying every day. They’ve even got some newly minted voters marching this way!

    2. Democrats: Let the niggers go. We got a caravan of that can replace them on the plantation.

      1. The writing is on the wall.

        I tend to pay attention to what Democrat leadership does. They know before anyone what their supporters are doing or want. For example thousands of black folks de-registering as Democrats. The MSM was not covering that much until yesterday. I figured they would ignore it but I think they are trying to rally those that have not left to make sure they vote or social pressure to bring the dissenting blacks back. I see the phrase Uncle Tom being thrown around a bit recently.

        That and this funny peer pressure line about black folks kissing so much white ass, that it turns a black person’s lips white. Hilarious! Ironic how Democrats that are black are accusing black folks that leave names when the Democratic Party was the party of slavery.

        If I was black, I would be hitting that point constantly.

        1. Fun fact: Some AmerIndians don’t use $20 bills because Andrew Jackson is on it.

          Andrew Jackson was a Democrat of course but many AmerIndians still vote Democrat.

  8. Kanye West’s new “Blexit” campaign urges blacks to leave the Democratic Party.

    Only Kanye could go to China and tell them the Chinese suck.

    1. But he’ll lettya finish.

  9. “When a site is allowing the perpetuation of hate, violence or discriminatory intolerance, we take immediate and decisive action,” said PayPal spokesman Justin Higgs in a statement.

    Had to issue a statement because there’s not enough Botox in the world to actually allow somebody to say that out loud with a straight face.

    1. Same folks who are silent on Louis Farrakhan. I defend his right even though he is an anti-semetic scumbag but actually stay silent when this scum is honored. I guess because he;s black and its racist to call out a black anti-Semite or something.

      1. Yep. Check your Intersectionality score card. Black beats Jew.

      2. I think the main difference is that they’re actually afraid of Farrakhan.

  10. New #PolComm Forum article: The Case for @FoxNews Studies, by @mattyglesias @voxdotcom https://t.co/XOPzoanRiy pic.twitter.com/JC5wjddyXk
    ? APSA & ICA Political Communication Divisions (@poli_com) October 27, 2018

    Do people really not see the irony in this?

    1. The first paragraph seemed almost worrisomely out of touch. So I stopped reading.

      1. For years the left had a lock on national journalism, but apparently none of them recognized it as that. They were reporting what is correct and seemed to feel that any dissenting opinion was so incorrect that nobody but a cretin would have it or have need to hear it. Now that there is a national outlet – a singular outlet – informed by a different ideological outlook, it is an anomaly so very different that it needs to be studied as such.

        To believe that journalists or the entertainment industry never before had influence in the halls of power is absurd.

        1. A single outlet that gets, on its best night, gets about 2 million viewers. But just like Kanye, can’t have anybody leave the plantation or others might start to get ideas.

    2. If Fox News is as nakedly partisan as this indicates, I would think that would make it all the less dangerous since their influence would have a pretty low ceiling on how many would buy into it.

      1. Those viewers would have swung the election the right way you know.

      2. I don’t know anybody who watches Fox News and doesn’t think they’re biased. Even the people who buy their BS hook line and sinker will admit that they are biased, but making up for the lies of other biased outlets.

        More troublesome than those people are the number of people who think the NYT and most of the press is actually biased TOWARDS Republicans. The Vox/HuffPo/Buzzfeed crowd is completely unaware of their own biases. They are so self-righteous and certain that they are the only correct ones it is ridiculous. That is far more concerning because it is more delusional.

        1. Fox is totally biased, but they’re just acting as a counterweight to the other 95% of the press that is to the left. The people who think the MSM is actually balanced are insane… The people that are so far left they say the NYT etc are “right wing” are soooooo delusionally out of touch with reality it is unbelievable. But they do actually exist :/

    3. That article would take a book to properly Fisk. Everything that somehow makes Fox News uniquely partisan has its opposite counterpart at CNN, MSNBC and CBS, from Dan Rather and Brian Stelter to Donna Shalala and John Brennan to any airport concourse and hotel breakfast room.

  11. 1) No mention of The Simpsons killing off Apu?

    2) And the #walkaway march?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4hXix76YeI

    1. They really killed Apu??? What a bunch of fucking assholes! They killed a character because he’s not PC, despite him actually being realistic in many ways, AND not being a bad person at all. It’s not like he was a negative stereotype, he was a good hard working family man. I fucking hate the left. Fortunately I haven’t watched the Simpsons in like 15 years, so I guess I’ll survive.

  12. So, it begins….

  13. Does no one in the White House understand umbrellas?

    Trump understand the Rihanna version
    Rihanna ‘Umbrella’

  14. Democrats need to sponsor a ‘Tech Company Freedom Act’ which would allow tech companies NOT to serve bigots speech – it worked for the GOP on the cake thing.

    1. MSNBC, CNN, WaPo, NYT what else do you want. I think the plug is restricting flow to your brain.

    2. At least you aren’t pretending not to be a leftist anymore.

      1. Why are you against Tech Company Freedom?

        1. Why do you and pretend you aren’t a leftist?

    3. I agree 100%.

      But recall what you wrote only yesterday: “Oh, and lest anyone think I am a ‘progressive’ – humanity needs to shitcan that miserable gutter-born belief system of Islam the most.” Your frequent Islamophobic comments would certainly qualify as bigoted hate speech.

      #LibertariansAgainstIslamophobia

      1. AKA #LibertariansForMisogynyKillingGays&Blasphemers;

      2. Just for the record:
        A phobia is an irrational fear
        It is rational to fear a religion that has as a core belief killing you if you do not convert to that religion.

    4. We used to have something like that. It was called the “the right of the people peaceably to assemble” clause of the First Amendment. A relic of the 1960’s.

      1. Ironic, considering that it was probably more violent then.

  15. Gab has a reputation as a Trump-friendly platform and has long attracted anger, revulsion, and mockery for embracing the alt-right and anyone shunted from other social sites.

    Embracing? Or not censoring?

    1. Its “correct speak” time now. But the censorship will be very fair.

    2. Imagine if no place like Gab existed and the shooting had happened? My God. Imagine how hard the investigation would be… They might have to do footwork.

      1. Maybe even legwork… Rereading my post footwork doesn’t seem the right word.

    3. “Embracing? Or not censoring?”

      Duh. In our ever improving partisan universe, unless you loudly and frequently denounce something, then you must be a dedicated supporter.

    4. There’s no reason to pretend Gab hasn’t actively embraced the alt-right.

      1. Or to pretend you aren’t crying about it.

      2. Actively embraced? Or not actively censored?

      3. So providing customers services now is “actively embracing” them? There is no use in pretending you are capable of making an intelligent or honest argument Cathy.

      4. Yes, they allowed the people who had been deplatformed to be on there… And since almost everybody being kicked off of other platforms for politics has been right wing, that’s mostly what they ended up with. However leftists are more than free to go there and rage against them too, which is the difference between Gab and FB/Twitter which only censors one side.

        ANTIFA should sign up for Gab en masse to troll Nazis.

    5. Embracing? Or not censoring?

      No, embracing. Gab’s own account posts pro-Trump and alt-right memes and posts on Twitter.

      1. ZOMG, the founder of Gab isn’t a communist! THE HORROR!

        As far as “alt-right,” that can mean many things to many people. Posting a “lock her up” meme, is that alt-right? I know they’re certainly Hillarious! But he’s not a white nationalist, which is what the MSM has decided to use as the official definition. He has not posted any “Gas the kykes, race war now!” memes or the like.

        So if the thing that makes him sooooo horrible is that he’s not a prog… Well, I don’t know that that’s much of an insult.

  16. Facebook has another quarter of plummeting subscribers.

  17. Alphabet has another quarter of plummeting subscribers and users.

    1. It sucks. My stock options locked in right around the peak. Please everyone, donate to my GoFundMe.

      1. Yes, you are the only poor bastard to lose money in the stock market.

        1. I know. Please donate to my GoFundMe.

  18. “46-year-old Robert Bowers?identified as a member of the fringe conspiracy group QAnon and disliked Donald Trump because he thought the president was “a globalist, not a nationalist” and beholden to Jewish interests.”

    As I recall, “beholden to Jewish interests” was part of two criticisms from Bowers. One was that Trump had surrounded himself with Jews in his administration. The other goes back to the criticism of Bannon and Breitbart, which has always been unabashedly pro-Israel.

    Kudos to ENB for mentioning this at all. God knows none of this fits into the ongoing media narrative about Trump being a racist and Breitbart being full of Nazis, so it’ll mostly be brushed aside in the mainstream coverage.

    That being said, the shooting happened over the weekend, which is a year ago in media years. The mail bombing happened before the weekend, which makes it ancient history now. By Wednesday, this story will probably fall out of the coverage completely.

    1. If am old enough to remember when accusing the President of being beholden to Jewish interests and going to war in Iraq for Isreal at the behest of evil Jewish Neocons was something all of the cool kids did. But appearently now it is something only evil Rightwingers do.

      1. I don’t suppose it behooves Trump to tweet about this, but part of him must want to make a spectacle of Bowers denouncing him. The fact is that Bowers hates Trump because Trump isn’t a racist.

        In Southern parlance, people might say that if Bowers hates Trump, then Trump can’t be all bad.

        1. The claim that Jews are fifth columnists forever getting the US into wars for the benefit of Isreal is the stock and trade of the left. If anyone is responsible for this other than the lunatic who did it, and for the record I don’t think anyone is, it is the left far more than the right that makes the claims this guy was making.

          1. And yet they have historical problems with the right going back through the Holocaust and the pogroms of eastern Europe.

            I understand this is why there’s an Israel.

            1. “I understand this is why there’s an Israel

              Why trust the left or the right, which amounts to depending on the kindness of strangers (a historically unsafe bet!), when we could form Israel and trust ourselves instead?

            2. I’m becoming more and more convinced that the vast majority of criticism of Israel is indeed pure anti-semitism by a different name. The undue attention, the pure hatred at Israel for committing “crimes” that are far less severe than half the countries on Earth do on a regular basis, and everything else can only be explained by anti-Semitism.

              1. It absolutely is. The same people who endorse BDS turn right around and are okay with trading with China and Saudi Arabia and Iran and a million other countries that are guilty of a thousand times worse sins than Isreal. They apply a double standard because Isreal is Jewish.

            3. There is an Israel because the UN said there will be an Israel.

            4. And yet they have historical problems with the left going back through the Holocaust and the pogroms of eastern Europe.

              FTFY.

              The European ‘right’ is not the same as the American ‘right’. And the European right had few problems with jews.

              It was the European left, and it’s precursors that was behind the pogroms. And, in both instances, as today, it is loyalty that lies at the base of the problem.

              Jews cannot be loyal to/part of X because they’re loyal to being Jews.

              1. Frankly, I think Israel DOES deserve a lot of criticism for doing a lot of sketchy stuff… And they very much HAVE encouraged us to undertake wars they think are in their interests.

                I don’t like either of those things.

                The difference is I WILL call out Saudi Arabia, or China, etc as doing the same things. Or our European allies who ALSO expect us to spend billions on military stuff to support THEIR interests.

                I do think a lot of people bag on Israel because they don’t like the Jews, but that doesn’t describe everybody. Some people do it out of actual principle. I don’t want the US to get into a war in the Eastern Europe over German interests anymore than I want us to blow up countries in the Middle East for Israeli interests.

        2. You are guilty of cultural appropriation for attempting to speak for southerners.
          You are banned forever from the web.
          *poof*

          1. I grew up in the South.

            1. Well then that’s even worse! You MUST be a neo-Confederate Nazi!!! ALL Southerners are, so the media tells me, so it MUST be true!!!

  19. Amazon has a quarter of lower users.

  20. Despite the fact that Twitter and Facebook are just as “complicit” in enabling Sayoc as Gab is in giving voice to Bowers, payment processing companies have not been pulling their services from these social giants and supposedly enlightened liberal voices haven’t been calling for their demise?yet Gab is getting both.

    Web hosting company GoDaddy dropped Gab, giving it just 24 hours to find a new host or be disappeared from the web. As a result, Gab has temporarily gone down. The company posted the following statement yesterday:

    Then it is time to hold Go Daddy responsible for EVERYTHING they host.

    You don’t want to be a content-neutral platform? Then live with the consequences.

    1. Exactly. How fucken retarded are they? Are they that blinded by their own faux-moral-righteous outrage?

      Like I said, if they were truly all that and a bag of KETCHUP potato chips, they’d apply their logic (if you can call it that) equally and without prejudice across the board.

      Which basically would leave them in tatters.

      I swear I loathe these evil ignorant pricks.

    2. Indeed, it is time to renew time-tested standards, and hold all publishers?online publishers alike with ink-on-paper publishers?for everything they publish. But to do so privately, according to the customary legal standards governing defamation and copyright infringement. There must be no room for government control of speech, nor for any government compelled speech.

      1. Oh, that horse is out of the barn.

        And paypal should lose all access to the banking system. As should all banks refusing to work with gun companies.

        1. And paypal should lose all access to the banking system. As should all banks refusing to work with gun companies.

          You would be a vengeful tyrant for sure.

          1. Youre taking advantage of our banking system that i pay for. Your personal views mean shit to me. Use your own money to virtue signal, not mine.

            1. “our banking system that i pay for. ”

              smdh

            2. Youre taking advantage of our banking system that i pay for.

              I wonder if you have clearly thought through the implications of what you are advocating here.

              1. Content neutral financial institutions?

                Yup, very much have.

                If you want to refuse to work with a legal product, then a bank can happily pull out of the FDIC, the Federal Reserve, and our entire financial infrastructure and make it on their own.

                Virtue signal on your own dime.

                1. Where is it written that participation in public life must necessarily mean endorsing all legal activities?

                  You are dangerously close to endorsing “bake the cake” coercion of businesses to cater to gay weddings even if the owners conscientiously object to doing so. “Well if they don’t want to bake the cake, they can refuse all public services!”

                  You can’t really have it both ways. If PayPal must be forced to do business with people that they don’t like, then Masterpiece Cake Shop must also be forced to do business with people that they don’t like.

                  1. Where is it written that participation in public life must necessarily mean endorsing all legal activities?

                    They’re using federal backstops for their entire operation.

                    If a bank likes virtue signalling, again, do it on their own dime.

                    You are dangerously close to endorsing “bake the cake” coercion of businesses to cater to gay weddings even if the owners conscientiously object to doing so. “Well if they don’t want to bake the cake, they can refuse all public services!”

                    What federal programs did the baker take? The feds weren’t paying him to make cakes. He paid his own bills.

                    Banks, on the other hand, have major benefits from the Feds. We cover a lot of their idiotic decisions.

                    Not even remotely comparable.

                    You can’t really have it both ways. If PayPal must be forced to do business with people that they don’t like, then Masterpiece Cake Shop must also be forced to do business with people that they don’t like.

                    PayPal has limited access to FDIC. Get rid of that entirely and we can talk.

                2. damikesc, why does a bank enjoy less moral agency with regard to legal products than a retail chain, like Hobby Lobby?

  21. So a Trump hating lunatic murders a bunch of Jews in Pittsburgh. As a result of this, the party that has Kieth Ellison as its national co-chair, is totally fine with its top officials paling around with Louis Farakhan, and counts BDS as part of its mainstream is now going to lecture Republicans about their Anti-Semitism problem. You know, Republicans; the party that elected a President whose daughter is an Orthadox Jew and who is the most pro Isreal President in history.

    Yeah, we live in the crazy times.

  22. Unsurprisingly, Radley “Red” Balko is having the vapors over the democratic election of a pro-market and pro-gun candidate in Brazil.

    1. No kidding? What it is Balko’s bitch about the guy? What could be so bad about him that it would cause anyone in this country to care?

      1. One example is posted above.

        1. Cry More Cathy!!! Crying as usual!!

        2. Get back to me when anything actually happens. Also, i don’t recall Balko ever saying a word about the various cheerleaders for Chavez, even though he said and did much worse than this.

          Balko doesn’t seem to think very much about these things and just emotes whatever he thinks the rest of his media peers expect him to emote.

          1. “Get back to me when anything actually happens.”

            The guy has been sending the military around pulling down signs that are anti-fascist or pro-democracy. He’s also sent the military into college classrooms to shut down classes for which he doesn’t like the content. I guess that should count as something happening. Sounds like a bad dude……

            1. He did this as a candidate? That is a pretty good trick. How exactly does one do all of that before they have any authority or power?

              1. Looks like he’s doing it as President-elect. It’s fucking Brazil. Things work differently there.

                Regardless, it’s happening, which is what you asked for.

                Take a look at the Twitter feed for @Castriotar. Or just deny it because it conflicts with your worldview. No sweat off my ass either way.

                1. I am afriad you are going to have to come up with a link and some explanation how he is doing all of this stuff, despite not being in office beyond “its Brazil”

                  1. I’m afraid you’d prefer to just keep your eyes closed and your fingers in your ear. I told you where to look and everything. If you don’t want to know, then you don’t want to know.

                    1. No you didn’t. Show me a link. You are the one making the point not me. It is not up to me to check your work. Show me a link to something other than the voices in your head.

    2. I don’t know who Balko is, but Bolsonaro is indeed terrifying. I hadn’t heard of him until this week, but almost every headline I read about his victory called him “far right.” So it has to mean he’s more than just pro-market and pro-gun.

      1. OMG! TRUMP LIKES HIM!

  23. Brazil has elected far-right figure Jair Bolsonaro as its next president. Trump is pleased.

    Far-right?

    Many Brazilians are concerned that Bolsonaro, an admirer of the dictatorship and a defender of its use of torture on leftist opponents, will trample on human rights, curtail civil liberties and muzzle freedom of speech.

    Reuters

    Yeah, far right. The Trump bromance will begin soon.

    1. Admiring dictatorships, endorsing torture and using the power of government to go after his enemies? Sounds like Brazil found themselves another Obama. You should be happy Shreek.

    2. “will trample on human rights, curtail civil liberties and muzzle freedom of speech.”

      Brazil elected Google?

    3. Sarah Palin’s Buttplug|10.29.18 @ 9:54AM|#
      “…Many Brazilians are concerned that Bolsonaro, an admirer of the dictatorship and a defender of its use of torture on leftist opponents, will trample on human rights, curtail civil liberties and muzzle freedom of speech…”

      So long as it fits turd’s lies, s/he’s more than willing to use ‘…some people say…’ as evidence.

  24. There is nothing sinister in private editing, including viewpoint-based private editing. Calls for compelled speech, on the other hand, are sinister.

    Crazy ranter former Gab commenters are always free to publish themselves. The internet has made that easy, and essentially cost free to do.

    All solutions to problems of this sort need to be private, free market solutions. That is the only way to keep government from trying to control speech. That must not happen.

    1. Agreed. But since they are protected from the DMCA because they are “platforms”: not “publishers”, this censoring becomes, well, “publishing”. A platform doesn’t limit what appears. Publishers do.

      So, treat them as publishers. Which they are. As far as Paypal et al, if you’re going to discriminate, you should lose ALL access to our banking system.

      1. Also, the social media companies are out there asking to be regulated right now.

        I guess it’s the eternal fate of libertarians to oppose government regulation of companies that are asking to be regulated by the government.

        1. And the LP should not do so. Let the idiots suffer. Just make sure that companies that do NOT want to be regulated avoid it.

    2. Market sollutions are great as long as the platforms are honest about their standards to their customers and do not create cartels and monopolies to prevent competition. The problem with Twitter is not that they are run by the worst sort of SJW trash and engage in blatent and systematic viewpoint discrimination. As you correctly point out, that is their right. The problem is that Twitter’s TOS claims to be viewpoint nuetral and they are effectively defrauding their users.

      The problem with Youtube is that because it is owned by Google, it is pretty close to a monopoly on that sort of platform on the internet. Worse, Google just buys up any competitor such that it is impossible for a rival platform to become a serious alternative to youtube.

      1. Why Trump hasnt gone after Google on anti-trust grounds i do not get. I do not see anti-trust as anti-Libertarian,

        1. I do not see anti-trust as anti-Libertarian,

          And yet it is…

          1. Not at all. A monopoly is every inch as anti-freedom as a dictatorship.

            1. A monopoly is every inch as anti-freedom as a dictatorship.

              You are right. But only in the sense that only a government can sustain a monopoly when it is no longer the most efficient market solution.

            2. Here. Try reading the essay that this quote comes from, you might learn something about actual economics.

              The world of antitrust is reminiscent of Alice’s Wonderland: everything seemingly is, yet apparently isn’t, simultaneously. It is a world in which competition is lauded as the basic axiom and guiding principle, yet “too much” competition is condemned as “cutthroat.” It is a world in which actions designed to limit competition are branded as criminal when taken by businessmen, yet praised as “enlightened” when initiated by the government. It is a world in which the law is so vague that businessmen have no way of knowing whether specific actions will be declared illegal until they hear the judge’s verdict?after the fact.

              “Antitrust”, essay at the National Association of Business Economists (25 September 1961); published in Rand, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.

            3. The libertarian argument one can make for many of these entities is that they are only able to maintain their borderline monopoly levels of power because of government interference. The DMCA has shielded Google, FB, Twitter, etc from being sued into oblivion… Yet they’re actually being allowed to slide on what even that law actually says, since they are not living up to the standards of being platforms vs publishers, not to mention their own terms of service. I DO hope some people with cash sue the crap out of them for the TOS stuff honestly.

      2. No, the problem with Twitter and Youtube (and FB and all the rest) is that they are run by and for idiots. And they make the idiots feel important. So they will not shut up.

      3. John, agree with most of what you say. I urge you to keep your focus on the monopoly bit. The way to fix that, and at the same time enable competition and opinion diversity among platforms, is to repeal Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. That is the section which enables publication without editing, and thus encourages internet giantism. If Facebook had to read everything it published, it would have to get much smaller to do it.

        Once that is out of the way, today’s monopolisitc giants will probably shrink dramatically on their own, clearing the field for competitors. If they don’t, then by all means hit them with antitrust sanctions. As even the most enthusiastic internet boosters are beginning to understand, communications monopolies have their downside.

        1. That is a good point. Actually, I think they just need to enforce the original DCMCA as it was written. If they do so much as ban anyone, then declare them liable for any copyright violations or any other content on their service. Either open it to everyone or be responsible for everything that is on there.

      4. Market sollutions are great as long as the platforms are honest about their standards to their customers and do not create cartels and monopolies to prevent competition. The problem with Twitter is not that they are run by the worst sort of SJW trash and engage in blatent and systematic viewpoint discrimination. As you correctly point out, that is their right. The problem is that Twitter’s TOS claims to be viewpoint nuetral and they are effectively defrauding their users.

        FTFY

        The problem with Youtube is that because it is owned by Google, it is pretty close to a monopoly on that sort of platform on the internet.

        Bullshit. Monopolies naturally exist where they are the most efficient market solution. The power to hold on to a monopoly when it is no longer the most efficient solution only comes from the end of a gun. Legislation or executive order create that power and police enforce it. Market solutions are the only ethical solutions.

        The only ‘problem’ is if Google, Paypal, etc., are being coerced into taking action based on the threat of regulation if they don’t. I have seen plenty of speculation, but very little evidence of such coercion. The tech ‘leadership’ seems to be perfectly willing to censor viewpoints without it. Until competitors step up, this will be the norm.

        1. The squirrels ruined my moment…

          Market sollutions are great as long as the platforms are honest about their standards to their customers and do not create cartels and monopolies to prevent competition. The problem with Twitter is not that they are run by the worst sort of SJW trash and engage in blatent and systematic viewpoint discrimination. As you correctly point out, that is their right. The problem is that Twitter’s TOS claims to be viewpoint nuetral and they are effectively defrauding their users.

          FTFY

        2. As long as they can buy out any competitors, there will not be. You seem to assume that Google will always act in the best interests of its shareholders and won’t sacrifice profit for ideology. That is just not true.

          1. You seem to assume that Google will always act in the best interests of its shareholders and won’t sacrifice profit for ideology.

            Those that offer the sacrifice of profits on the altars of political correctness will eventually be consumed by the market, or else by the demon children spawned of their unholy rites.

            Either way, I am good with that.

    3. There’s nothing wrong with criticizing the culture, even if you don’t want the government involved. That’s one of the great things about libertarianism. Once you establish yourself as a libertarian, you can criticize what people do, and people should understand that you aren’t necessarily calling for the government to get involved.

      The McCarthy hearings during the Red Scare were bad, but government involvement wasn’t the only problem. The willingness of the studios to blackball any actor, producer, writer, or director simply because of what they believed at one time in their lives led to a culture that stifled a healthy exchange of ideas in our society.

      Yeah, I can criticize Hollywood during the Red Scare for being cowards, and I can criticize social media for being cowards for the same reason, too–without calling for government intervention of any kind. I also think people squandering their lives living off their parents, getting high, and playing Xbox all day every day is pathetic as hell. Doesn’t mean I want the government to get involved.

      1. Technically, McCarthy had nothing to do with Hollywood. That was HUAC. McCarthy focused on government infiltration.

        1. The point was that government involvement wasn’t the only problem, and a libertarian can criticize how various private citizens acted without it being assumed that he or she wants government involvement.

          1. 100% correct. And so I do, all the time. Because many deserve to get criticized.

    4. Crazy ranter former Gab commenters are always free to publish themselves. The internet has made that easy, and essentially cost free to do.

      Or go to Free Republic, Bratfart, Stormfront, of any number of the thousands of right-wing sites.

      People like ‘John’ and Tulpa here want to force Google, a private company, into allowing speech they don’t want on their site.

      1. I do? Post that quote because I’m calling you a liar.

        1. By the way, he won’t post the quote or even a response most likely, he’ll jist run away like he does when people are reminded that he lies about polls and paying his bets.

          1. There is no quote, because you haven’t. But, lying is all shreek can do.

            1. He’s clearly reached the point where everyone knows that about him and he is totally flustered and has no idea how to deal with it.

        2. TuIpa|10.29.18 @ 9:57AM|#

          “will trample on human rights, curtail civil liberties and muzzle freedom of speech.”

          Brazil elected Google?

          You lied about Google then. You said they “muzzle” freedom of speech which implies they should not be allowed to by the Feds.

          1. Ask the Chinese about it motherfucker.

          2. “which implies they should not be allowed to by the Feds.”

            No you barely literate leftist clown, it doesn’t. That you have to that assert something I never said was “implied” means you know you’re lying.

            1. WHOA!

              Where is the proof he is literate?

              1. The funnies part is that to that idiot, pointing put Google is a human rights nightmare is “forcing Google into allowing speech they don’t want onto their site.”

                No, it doesn’t make sense to anyone else either.

          3. You lied about Google then. You said they “muzzle” freedom of speech which implies they should not be allowed to by the Feds.

            They’re working with China to specifically do that.

    5. Techdirt has one of the most bizarre blind spots in this regard, foaming-at-the-mouth raging about the government’s failure to enforce regulation of the internet backbone and simultaneous foaming-at-the-mouth raging about Ajit Pai and the FCC cravenly and corruptly conspiring with Comcast and ATT to regulate the internet backbone in favor of Comcast and ATT. Look, you want the government to have the power to regulate, who do you think is going to control the regulators? Hint: not you.

    6. One can simultaneously hold the positions that

      1. Paypal has every right to drop them
      2. Paypal should not drop them though

      1. And if paypal has a monopoly such that it is impossible to operate on the internet without using them, what then?

        All of the arguments that can be made here could have equally been made about the Jim Crow South. Hey, who cares if blacks can’t get into the best schools or most of the establishments, the market solved that by providing black owned businesses.

        If it is the case, and I don’t know that it is, that a company like Gab ends up never getting off the ground because the tech industry collectively decides that it just won’t do business with it, don’t you see how that could be a huge problem? Do you really want to live in a world where only people who have approved ideas are allowed to do business on the internet?

        1. “And if paypal has a monopoly such that it is impossible to operate on the internet without using them, what then?”

          You can’t be serious here.

        2. If it is the case, and I don’t know that it is, that a company like Gab gay couple ends up never getting off the ground a wedding cake because the tech industry collectively Masterpiece Cake Shop decides that it just won’t do business with it them, don’t you see how that could be a huge problem? Do you really want to live in a world where only people who have approved ideas are allowed to do business on the internet?

          SInce you have posted on the issues in Masterpiece in the past, can we agree that you do want to live in a world where companies are not forced to comply? Principles, not principals, John.

          1. Can we agree that you are a moron that imagines the world to be as you want it and not as it is? Reality doesn’t give a fuck about your principles dipshit.

            1. Can we agree that you are a moron that imagines the world to be as you want it and not as it is?

              Wow, that was super defensive. Ad hominem does not look pretty on you. It makes your head look fat.

              By the way, those are not just my principles you are shitting all over just because I rightfully called you on out on your hypocrisy. Freedom of association (and non-association) is one of the pillars of the Libertarian platform.

              Turning away customers and earning social disapproval is no way to run a successful business. Libertarians believe that most adults don’t need a paternal government to instruct them in proper moral behavior. Those that do need such instruction will get plenty from those they associate with, or by noticing those who refuse to associate with them. https://www.lp.org

              (drops mic)

  25. Matthew Yglesias is a great writer. I’ve seen conservatives pounce on the fact that he once wrote Why I’m more worried about Marco Rubio than Donald Trump but that was an honest mistake on his part. He eventually realized the grave danger Drumpf poses to the entire planet.

    #LibertariansForYglesias

    1. Matthew Yglesias is a great writer.

      You, sir, have gone too far.

  26. But they claim “pungent, foul odors” from a neighboring indoor marijuana grow have hurt the property’s value and their ability to use and enjoy it.

    “That’s just not right,” Barnes said. “It’s not right to have people in violation of federal law injuring others.”

    So, legalize it at the federal level, too.

    1. If he could buy it cheap at Walgreens, he wouldn’t need an intensive grow operation.

    2. Well, actually, the federal law states that to be schedule one, a substance may not have any medicinal use; so marijuana cannot legally be left on schedule one. But a certain federal bureaucrat is not doing his job, so the apparent conflict remains.

  27. Gab will fine another hosting site, that’s all. Libertarians should be the last people concerned about unmet market needs.

    1. These same “libertarians” are opposed to an open internet (net neutrality) which would allow an ISP to block any conservatives URL like Gab.

      1. Sarah Palin’s Buttplug|10.29.18 @ 10:19AM|#
        “These same “libertarians” are opposed to an open internet (net neutrality)”

        Complete list of turd’s posts which are not lies:

      2. “an open internet (net neutrality) which would allow an ISP to block”

        Ladies and gentlemen, our idiot shreek.

        1. Its always amusing to see what lefties think Libertarians should be doing or advocating for.

          Even funnier is to see their opinions as to why Libertarians do things.

          1. They’re going to block it into openness.

      3. I thought it was the other way around; net neutrality would not allow an ISP to block.

        Anyway, libertarians are able to hold two non-contradictory thoughts in their heads at the same time; they can oppose a certain practice and also believe the government should not be empowered to ban it.

      4. “hese same “libertarians” are opposed to an open internet (net neutrality) ”

        What a shock that libertarians are opposed to government use of force to control the terms of service of private companies with their customers. WTF Palin, opposing net neutrality is a libertarian no-brainer.

    2. If it forever is losing its hosting site, how can it become a viable alternative to Twitter? I don’t think it is wrong to be concered about cartels and unfair trade practices.

      1. I don’t think it is wrong to be concered about cartels and unfair trade practices.

        The mewling cry of every shitty entrepreneur with a cousin on the city council.

        You suddenly sound like an Ayn Rand villain. Did the liberals infect you with brain fever or something?

    3. I’m concerned about the government using social media as background checks for things like passports, gun purchases, etc.

      Unmoderated speech may always exist online, but there’s a legitimate question about whether platforms can be held responsible for damages caused by users whose activities they could have reported to law enforcement but didn’t. Immunity to such lawsuits is one of the things social media platforms are seeking along with regulation.

      The bigger question for me is whether the NSA, et. al., will inform things like background checks for gun purchases with what people believe and say online. Advertisers and social media companies themselves have access to all this information, and the mass shooters, with rare exceptions, all seem to go online and brag about whom they hate and why. Even if the NSA doesn’t have access to that information, the social media companies themselves would be happy to supply it in return for rent-seeking regulation.

      Should being an antisemite disqualify someone’s gun rights from Second Amendment protection? What other beliefs should also disqualify people from purchasing a gun, getting a pilot’s license, having a passport, etc.? Libertarians might argue that the Second Amendment exists so that we’ll be armed if and when it ever becomes necessary to overthrow an oppressive government. Who decides whether that constitutes sufficient cause to deny a firearm purchase? A Democrat controlled congress? President Liz Warren?

      1. The biggest threat to free speech today is the left’s demands to end anonymity on the internet by requiring that any internet platform positively identify every person who posts there. Privacy and free speech are intimately connected. If people have no privacy, they will never feel free to express unpopular views and both society and the government will be able to use the mob to ensure only those views deemed acceptable by those in power are ever expressed. The left, of course, understands this and sees anyonymous speech as a serious threat to its power.

        1. It’s already pretty much like that. The social media platforms know exactly who you are, and so do the advertisers. If you’re on anything by Google, Apple, Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc., etc., then the social media platforms know exactly who you are, and advertisers know who you are–even if you don’t go to those sites. And your ISP knows who you are.

          There are things you can do to limit their reach, but most people aren’t willing to do those things, or they aren’t willing to make the sacrifices necessary to protect their anonymity.

          People can point to that and say, “If that’s what people want, that’s what they want!”. Maybe that’s true but 1) Persuading people to want something better than what we’ve got is what being a libertarian is all about and 2) I’m not sure people want the stupid shit they said when they were in their 20s online following them around for the rest of their lives to work against them in job interviews, gun purchases, licensing requirements, etc. There’s no escaping that the government should not discriminate against people because of what they believe, and really has no business using that information to make any decisions.

          1. ” then the social media platforms know exactly who you are, and advertisers know who you are–even if you don’t go to those sites. And your ISP knows who you are.”

            It is possible to take countermeasures that pretty much obviate this, but most people don’t.

            Not saying you can avoid scrutiny of state actors but you can pretty much stay under the radar of these big social media companies with a little effort.

            1. It is possible to take countermeasures that pretty much obviate this, but most people don’t.

              Not saying you can avoid scrutiny of state actors but you can pretty much stay under the radar of these big social media companies with a little effort.

              Couldn’t that become a problem unto itself at some point?

              When it comes to credit ratings, having no credit history is worse than a bad credit history. I can see some bureaucrat thinking, “Anyone who takes such measures to hide their opinions must be doing so for a reason…”

              1. HR people are already doing that. Lack of a social media presence is regarded as a red flag by potential employers.

        2. Once the government is able to attach racist comments to your profile, the question will no longer be whether people have the right to own a gun. It will boil down to questions like, “Do you believe that racists have gun rights?” And the future is now. They can already do this. They just haven’t put two and two together yet. And we certainly shouldn’t expect the left to respect the First or Second Amendment rights of racists, Christians, white blue-collar Trump voters, immigration opponents, critics of Islam, etc., etc., etc. on principle. In their minds, a government that discriminates against such people is doing a good job.

          1. And it will allow them to know who owns guns or holds other objectionable views. The tech companies will then share that with employers and ensure that any right the left doesn’t like is a dead letter. Sure, own all of the guns you want, but you won’t be getting a job doing anything but digging ditches if you do so.

            It is straight up corporatism and fascism. And it is an enormous threat to our freedom. Sadly the wokeltarians at reason are too in love with tech and completely unable to understand a threat to freedom that doesn’t come directly from government action. So, they don’t understand the threat much less support any measures to address it.

            1. “Sadly the wokeltarians at reason are too in love with tech and completely unable to understand a threat to freedom that doesn’t come directly from government action.”

              This is indeed perhaps going to end up being a REAL problem in the future. If ALL major business enterprises go all in on backing a certain fascist form of government, saaay like in Nazi Germany… And are getting political powers and favors handed to them by the government… At what point do they lose the “private actors should be able to do what they like” protection.

              I don’t think we’re QUITE there yet, but it’s not hard to see a day when we may be. So it might just have to be a question libertarians have to answer, and maybe not in a way they like. Just as in Communist China today many “private” companies are anything but, such things may end up being much the same in the western world shortly.

  28. You don’t want private businesses to act like private businesses, but you claim you don’t want them run like public utilities either.

    What are you looking for here?

    1. I’m convinced that most of this problem is being driven by the novelty of this market.

      In traditional broadcast television, the content is typically driven by advertising concerns. Advertisers want to reach girls between the ages of 14 and 25, so they make a show that will appeal to that demographic. That’s what you’d expect in a market driven by advertising.

      Social media is novel because the content isn’t created by and for the advertisers. The content is created by users like us. Social media makes money by selling advertising, but they’re selling advertising on top of content that they don’t create themselves. Meanwhile, Coca-Cola, McDonald’s, Nike, and Ford don’t want their advertising to appear as if it’s sponsoring antisemitic, racist, homophobic, etc. content.

      Essentially, the problem is that average people are having their expression subjected to the scrutiny of advertisers.

      What I want is a social media platform that isn’t supported by advertising. It already exists, but such platforms have a hard time competing with already established networks (how do you get all your friends to join a new platform?), and if the major social media companies are able to rent seek themselves some extensive market barriers associated with the costs of policing content, no platforms free of advertising may be able to emerge under those conditions. So, I also want social media to remain unregulated.

      1. As annoying as I find the left owning these platforms, I think it gives them less power than they think. The problem is that they can only ban so many people. So they ban a few well known conservatives. That isn’t the threat. The threat to thiem are the millions of Twitter useers who have at most a few hundred followers. They are not important enough to get noticed. But when you put them together, they form a web of communication such that ideas the lunatics who run Twitter want supressed end up getting diseminated anyway.

        Ultimately, the internet just doesn’t lend itself to central control. You can throw out a few big names but you can never stop millions of people from communicating with each other and the powers of exponential math from ensuring that ideas get spread. Even China really can’t control the internet, despite its enormous efforts to do so and enormous power over its people. A bunch of half wit SJWs running a bunch of big tech firms are not going to do so either.

        1. As mores change, so does advertising. There’s no guarantee that the world will remain forever social justice warrior. The children of the social justice warriors may rebel against them just as the baby boomers rebelled against their conformist greatest generation parents. The old conformity was more conservative, and it spurred a progressive reaction. The new conformity is more progressive, and when the levee breaks, the reaction to that probably won’t be progressive.

          This expansion will end. There will be huge debt. I don’t know what the future holds, but I’m sure it will blame what came before for their problems. What came before will be a generation of progressives. And social media will need to advertise to those people who look back at the progressives like we look at Leisure Suit Larry. If and when advertisers want to advertise to people who aren’t so sensitive to racism, misogyny, homophobia, etc., the social media platforms will change to accommodate that.

          1. The thing that strikes me most about the SJWs is how miserable and unhappy they all seem. The 60s counter culture, even though it had a real darkside that always comes with heondism, at least seemed glamorous. In 1967, someone could be forgiven for thinking that the counter culture was having all fo the fun. I can totally understand why someone would be attracted to it.

            In contrast, the SJW all seem to be broken, bitter and angry people incapable of having a good time. Is there anything less glamorous and attractive than a bunch of people sitting around trying to outdo each other in victimhood? I am firly convinced the SJW movement is going to completely collapse as people inevitably want to move on and have fun and live more exciting rather than borken and neurotic lives.

            1. I’ve met people like this IRL. They seem like miserable people. Being angry and offended at everything seems like an awful way to go through life.

            2. I just finished watching season 7 of the American Horror Story, and it was so fucking good on this point.

            3. They are all miserable people. Looking around at everything in the world and seeing nothing but horrible, evil, things will wear a person down… Especially when you’re finding such horrible things in perfectly normal behavior, or even downright positive behavior!

          2. Ken, this is already happening.

            Generation Z, the ones after the Millennials, is showing every sign of swinging to the right. I’m an older millennial, and I have always thought my age group was a LOT more sane than the younger millennials, and ultimately have more in common with later Gen Xers, which I think is true. We were originally going to be Gen Y, but then somehow the name got changed, and the years got changed, and I ended up a millennial. Gen Y was originally going to be what are now considered the later Gen Xers up through around 1990 births. This seems more coherent in terms of similarities in the way we grew up…

            Anyway, the younger millennials born a few years after me are truly nuts. Most of them really DO seem to fit the stereotypes. BUT that seems to have ended after a brief period, and Gen Z polls as being to the right on a TON of issues.

            Everything from social issues, to economics, they’re polling to the right of Millennials, Gen X, Boomers, basically comparable to the Greatest Generation or even the Silent Generation on a lot of stuff. They’ve had enough of political correctness, helicopter parenting (and the big government equivalent that continues this nannying into adulthood), and the whole 9 yards. They may be what saves us from the progs when they start voting as of the next election cycle or 2!

      2. What I want is a social media platform that isn’t supported by advertising.

        How much per month are you prepared to pay to subscribe?

        Alternatively, set it up yourself, and avoid payments entirely, by substituting sweat equity.

        Essentially, the problem is that average people are having their expression subjected to the scrutiny of advertisers.

        That, of course, has been the author’s dilemma for centuries. And there is no getting around the fact that, historically, the better the platform, the higher the scrutiny. Even before the internet, an author who didn’t care what platform he got published in could be pretty well assured of publication somewhere?maybe only in some free community-advertiser-type publication, but published?but only so long as the publisher judged the contribution would not drive away advertisers.

        The very best publishers built reputations so strong that they got the upper hand, and could sell advertisers (within limits, and only some advertisers) on the quality of the audience, even if the advertisers didn’t much care for the authors’ contributions. Those publications were, of course, tremendously hard for authors to break into.

        1. “How much per month are you prepared to pay to subscribe?”

          I pointed to one option in the other thread that pays authors, commenters, people who upvote and downvote comments, and doesn’t charge a subscription or use advertising.

          “That, of course, has been the author’s dilemma for centuries. And there is no getting around the fact that, historically, the better the platform, the higher the scrutiny.”

          There is getting around it!

          https://reason.com/blog/2018/10…..nt_7536239

  29. Does no one in the White House understand umbrellas?

    Well, they are the resident evil.

  30. Pound of flesh

  31. As others have pointed out, FB, Youtube, etc are private companies. They are not obligated to host you.

    The problem is they want to have it both ways.

    They want to be private venues when it’s convenient:
    “We can shut down pages that don’t meet ‘community standards'”

    They want to be an open platform when it’s convenient:
    “We arent’t responsible for libelous, copyrighted, or otherwise illegal content. We’re an open forum and have no idea what everyone posts.”

    Pick one.

    1. They want to be ‘regulated’ like all new big giants in any industry that want to pull the ladder up behind them.

      GDPR is a perfect example.

      A slight burden for TwiGoopleBook and a way to prevent competitors from getting off the ground because the burden is too great.

      1. If you want to say that they can get rid of anyone they want from their platform, fine. But, i don’t see how you can say that and then turn around and give them immunity for the content that is on their platform.

        The deal that was struck by the old DMCA was that digital platforms would not be responsible for the content put up by their users but in return they had to operate in a content neutral way. If they are not going to do that, then their immunity needs to be stripped. Twitter can have all of the freedom to govern its platform it likes, but it must then accept the responsibilty of whatever content is on its platform in return.

        1. Yep, agreed.

          They have immunity based on the condition of being open platforms. They are not acting as open platforms, they are controlling content. They want to have their immunity and eat it too.

        2. I don’t see why that can’t be.

          1. Platform for publishing whatever content your users feel like publishing. Govt shouldn’t and can’t have any say here.
          2. Platform can ban users who are publishing content that they feel will result in bad PR or other bad outcomes for the business.

          How is this not consistent with liberty?

          1. Hypothetically, if what they are banning comes 100% from African-American producers, will that make it any clearer for you?
            If all pro-LBGTQetc content disappeared, would you catch on then?

          2. It isn’t, except that they then are responsible for what users put on their platform since they clearly have control over what goes on.

    2. Exactly.

      Funny how Reason has failed to notice this. It’s almost like they’re just in favor of corporate power.

  32. Web hosting company GoDaddy dropped Gab, giving it just 24 hours to find a new host or be disappeared from the web. As a result, Gab has temporarily gone down. The company posted the following statement yesterday:

    Well well well.

  33. “When a site is allowing the perpetuation of hate, violence or discriminatory intolerance, we take immediate and decisive action,” said PayPal spokesman Justin Higgs in a statement.

    So PayPal will no longer service democratic politicians, nor Louis Farrakhan?

    1. No.

      Like every argument the Left makes, it’s only a rationalization for power, to be instantly discarded when it no longer serves their power.

  34. U.S. homeowners are staying in their houses for the longest stretches on record

    An important factor in this that I rarely see mentioned is that it is now normal for US families to have two significant incomes. It is much more difficult for a family to relocate if both spouses need to find good jobs in their new location.

  35. Trump is considering Neomi Rao, administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, to replace Brett Kavanaugh on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

    I loved her in The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo but not so much in Prometheus.

  36. ‘ Gab’s temporary demise has spawned gleefully idiotic gloating from certain “progressive” and “anti-fascist” circles, which seem unconcerned that Gab is getting different treatment than its more entrenched and establishment competitors. ‘

    They’re not merely unconcerned, they’re ecstatic.

    The only principle the Left has is power.

    1. Though I will say that ENB has at least balanced the other Reason article doing the usual “Silence the Unbelievers! They’re all Hitler!”.

      +1 ENB

  37. This isn’t really an argument about monopoly power, although some tech giants are certainly close… It’s really more about a Cartel type situation. Because the major tech companies are definitely participating in cartel type behavior. It also overlaps with fascist type government/private overlap and sharing of power.

    Anybody who doesn’t see this as a problem is a fool.

    I don’t think we’re at the point where we MUST take government action against it… Yet. But there may come a day where it is needed. Were the major companies in Nazi Germany not merely extensions of the states power in many instances? Of course they were. If Hitler said Jump, they asked How High. And many of these businesses are doing that exact thing in response to the leftist politicians telling them to Jump.

    We can surely let things play out for now… But there are times in history where one MUST break principles in order to SURVIVE. If your enemy is willing to break established “rules” of engagement, and you do not, you will lose every time. The left has been playing at this for MANY years. Which is why they right and libertarians have been getting KILLED.

    If you agree to a knife fight, and the other guy busts out an AK47, and you stick to your knife out of a sense of principle… You’re done. Sometimes you just gotta bust out that good ol’ M16, even if it’s supposed to be a knife fight.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.