Mike Lee

'Nobody Wants To See a Government Speech Police': Senate Republicans Threaten To Regulate Facebook and Twitter

They say the social media companies display a bias against conservatives.

|

SIPA/Newscom

Facebook and Twitter were in the spotlight again on Wednesday. The Senate Judiciary Committee grilled the companies' top execs over a perceived anti-conservative bias, with some Republicans renewing calls for government regulation of social media platforms.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R–Texas) opened the hearing, saying that "nobody—or at least nobody in their right mind—wants to see a government speech police." But he outlined several ways where he wants government intervention. Most notably, he suggested that social media networks could lose their status under Section 230, which protects the content-sharing companies from various lawsuits.

If that happened, Facebook and Twitter would be liable for any and all libelous comments made on their sites—a tall order, especially when you remember that Facebook gets a billion new posts each day. Such a move would almost certainly lead to increased censorship, with tech companies actively seeking to quash comments that might attract lawsuits.

Cruz also proposed using antitrust laws to break up big tech, and he said that cases of alleged censorship could be litigated as fraud.

Whether or not social media platforms push an anti-conservative agenda has been a matter of ongoing debate, as much of the evidence is anecdotal. Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R–Tenn.) mentioned that her campaign announcement video was temporarily removed from Twitter in 2017 after it was deemed inflammatory. She likened social media to a "town square," saying a sheriff—in this case the federal government—is necessary to preserve fairness and order. Carlos J. Monje, Jr., the director of public policy and philanthropy for Twitter's presence in U.S. and Canada, apologized and said the company had "made the wrong call" in taking down her ad.

Meanwhile, ranking member Mazie Hirono (D–Hawaii) lambasted the notion that social media platforms discriminate against conservatives. She named a number of anti-bias efforts undertaken by social media platforms to appease Republicans and listed a range of experts who had found no evidence to support such claims. That social media companies are blind to ideology can be seen in the case of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.), Hirono argued. Not unlike Blackburn, the liberal presidential hopeful recently had a campaign ad removed by Facebook.

Hirono claimed that the real threat is the online proliferation of conspiracy theories and hate speech, which she said requires more rigorous moderation. "I hope that going forward, this subcommittee will focus on the real issues facing America, like hate speech, like voter suppression, like looking into the emoluments clause," noted Hirono.

Francesca Tripodi, a sociologist at James Madison University, testified that her research shows "conservative content creators excel at search engine and social media optimization."

Throughout the hearing, Cruz focused heavily on pro-life sentiment, which has been at the center of the censorship dispute. The senator introduced a briefly blocked tweet from Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, which features a Mother Teresa quote characterizing abortion as "profoundly anti-women." Monje said that pro-choice groups have had content removed when they, too, were in violation of Twitter's policies—although what those policies are remains unclear.

He also rejected allegations that Twitter has a bias against any political ideology, referencing an internal study that found no statistically significant difference in the number of people that see tweets from Democrats versus Republicans.

Neil Potts, the public policy director at Facebook, also pushed back on the accusations of bias. "We are committed to encouraging dialogue and the free flow of ideas," he said, citing a laundry list of internal efforts meant to ensure ideological diversity in content review efforts. "We take that neutrality seriously."

But Cruz pressed Potts on Facebook's stance against hate speech, raising concerns over the company's history of removing posts that are deemed emotionally injurious.

Not all Republicans on the committee expressed a desire to monitor social media practices. "I differ from some of my colleagues in the approach I take to this," said Sen. Mike Lee (R–Utah). "I don't view you as a public utility. I don't view you as being owned by the government, but some of my colleagues see it differently." Yet in a moment of cringeworthy political theatre, Lee angrily pressed both execs to concede that their respective companies are dominated by liberal employees. They almost certainly are, as both are based in Silicon Valley. But it's information that neither is privy to.

The hearing likely accomplished very little—if anything—as Democrats and Republicans stood firm in their respective positions. Even so, they came to a rare area of agreement, with both sides calling for the tech giants to be more transparent.

"To be sure, we must take seriously the fact that YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter play an increasingly important role in how our society gains access to news and information," said Tripodi. "Unfortunately, the opaqueness of their operational tactics allow unsubstantiated conspiracies to hold weight."

NEXT: Internet Censorship Is Only for the Little People, French Edition

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. Hirono claimed that the real threat is the online proliferation of conspiracy theories and hate speech, which she said requires more rigorous moderation.

    Ha. So close to having the high ground

    1. You’re pretty safe in assuming that anything Crazy Mazie supports is a terrible idea.

  2. “nobody?or at least nobody in their right mind?wants to see a government speech police.”

    Apparently Texas Ted isn’t in tune with his fellow Americans.

    1. When all dissenters are coming from lefty-trained college indoctrination camps, at taxpayer’s expense, a government-funded speech police sounds like a fair trade to protect the few patriots who remain in our society.

      1. Come see libertarianism in action, folks.

  3. Cruz also proposed using antitrust laws to break up big tech, and he said that cases of alleged censorship could be litigated as fraud.

    He’s really trying to be the next big H&R hero, isn’t he?

  4. “Hirono claimed that the real threat is the online proliferation of conspiracy theories and hate speech, which she said requires more rigorous moderation. “I hope that going forward, this subcommittee will focus on the real issues facing America, like hate speech, like voter suppression, like looking into the emoluments clause,” noted Hirono.”

    That woman is so stupid that she makes Ted Cruz’s crazy idea about regulating internet companies seem reasonable in comparison.

    1. She’s single-handedly wrecking the “Smart Asian” brand.

      1. I’ll never trust a stereotype again

  5. testified that her research shows “conservative content creators excel at search engine and social media optimization.”

    And yet they’re somehow incapable of creating their own site.

    1. LOL, so you just admitted that all the other sites are on the other side. Oops.

      1. LOL, so you just admitted you can’t read. Oops.

        1. Sure, go ahead and spin it that way instead of addressing the issue. If you want to make the claim that Twitter and Facebook are fundamentally centrist and don’t lean to the Left to the point of bias, then argue the point. But there’s a substantial amount of evidence that they are biased to the Left. And it’s indisputable that they lean to the Left.

          1. If you want to make the claim that Twitter and Facebook are fundamentally centrist and don’t lean to the Left to the point of bias, then argue the point.

            First tell me where i made that point. Don’t blame me when you see gnomes behind your couch.

            But there’s a substantial amount of evidence that they are biased to the Left. And it’s indisputable that they lean to the Left.

            OH NOES! SOMEBODY STOP THEM!

            1. “First tell me where i made that point. ”

              I realize analytical thought processes are Hard.

              a) the topic is about the Left wing tilt of Facebook and Twitter.
              b) you made the comment: “And yet they’re {conservatives are} somehow incapable of creating their own site.”
              c) which Implies that Facebook and Twitter are created by non-conservatives.
              d) the further logical implication is that Facebook and Twitter lean to the Left, this is backed up by the preponderance of the evident.

              1. You suck at logic. All you proved is that you can read things that don’t exist.

                1. Well someone isn’t good at logic, I’ll let everyone else decide who made the most cogent point.

                2. It is an entirely logical inference.

                  You can refute the inference by making concrete statements to the contrary. So far your responses have done nothing of the sort, denials and misdirection at best.

                  1. You can refute the inference by making concrete statements to the contrary.

                    Not my job to refute morons who put words in my mouth. You doofuses can infer anything you want from what I typed, that doesn’t mean I was making the point you think I was making.

            2. Oh, look, another pro government leftist turned temporary libertarian on the issue of big tech censorship. I wonder why on on this one issue?

              Of course I know why, though. The actual fascist Nazis of the left don’t care where which entity is wearing the boot as long as the heel is being used to crush conservatives.

              F all leftists in this country. Silence the right if you want; just know that silence means your next encounter will be on the battlefield. Not a threat from me, just a guarantee from someone who’s studied history.

    2. Oh, they’re quite capable of making their own web sites. It’s the part about having to create their own domain registries, payment processors, banks and credit cards in order to get it online that gets stinky.

      1. It may stink, but it’s the way things work.

  6. “Cruz also proposed using antitrust laws to break up big tech, and he said that cases of alleged censorship could be litigated as fraud.”

    I maintain that the biggest issue is that advertisers don’t want their advertising appearing next to or in front of messages and videos that promote guns, are anti-gay marriage, are anti-Muslim, etc., etc. Facebook has a huge problem keeping advertisers on their platform for fear that their advertising will be seen as endorsing these things. It isn’t the bias. It’s the advertisers.

    Remember that famous CocaCola’ commercial?

    I’d like to teach the world to sing
    in perfect harmony
    Grow apple trees and honey bees
    And home milled AR-15s.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VM2eLhvsSM

    Actually, that’s not how the song goes. The advertisers don’t want anything to do content about guns, anti-gay, anti-Muslim, or a whole bunch of other controversial topics. And it would be that way even if the people who work at Facebook were Skoal chewing, Nascar watching, Charlie Daniels fans.

    P.S. Antitrust won’t do anything to change the preferences of advertisers.

    P.P.S. It’s embarrassing to watch a once serious contender for president aping a progressive loser like Elizabeth Warren–and Elizabeth Warren’s campaign for president is circling the drain in every way.

    1. Foreign government regulation plays a part in this too. It’s easier for these companies to impose these rules across the entire platform than to regulate part of the platform to conform with internet laws passed by a specific country. Speech on these platforms are already regulated, it’s just not regulated by the US government. These regulations also make it more difficult for a competitor to compete.

      1. As advertising platforms, I’d argue that there is something to the idea that advertisers may always skew left. I suspect that’s because advertisers are mostly willing to pay to influence younger consumers–who haven’t yet established any kind of brand loyalty. Being a successful TV show on broadcast television doesn’t matter if you aren’t attracting viewers in the younger demographic.

        I already know what I like. Bic’s advertising is wasted on me. I’ve been using Gillette for a long time, and I’m unlikely to change. Guys who are just starting to shave, on the other hand . . .

        The thing is, younger people tend to be more liberal–and hasn’t it always been that way? The famous Coca Cola commercial I linked above from 1971 was meant to appeal to younger audiences. Even if those viewers became yuppies and moved to the suburbs in the 1980s, when they were younger, they were liberal. It’s still that way today.

        Wasn’t it Churchill who said something about how if you’re not a liberal when you’re young, you don’t have a heart, and if you don’t become more conservative when you’re older, you don’t have a brain?

        1. I didn’t dispute any of this. I just think you are ignoring the impact of foreign regulation.

          1. See my comment below.

            I think the regulation of hate speech, etc. is largely consistent with what advertisers want.

            1. South Park dealt with this a few seasons ago.

              The more bland speech is required to be, the more dominant advertising becomes.

              Advertisers don’t want people to think, they want people to feel and obey. Thus, they market to the Left/progressives

              1. “Advertisers don’t want people to think, they want people to feel and obey. Thus, they market to the Left/progressives”

                Not disputing this statement. But you’re missing half the equation. There are hordes of right/conservatives feeling and obeying every Sunday AM. Face it, everyone…Right & Left and in between feels/obeys. It’s just a matter of whom they obey, and what they’re told to feel.

                1. “Both sides!”

                  C’mon

                  1. Beats “MY TEAM’S BETTER THAN YOURS!”

                    1. Didn’t state anything about the other team.
                      I did point out that the Left/progressives are a hive mind seeking totalitarian power and whose members are programmed by things such as the educational industrial complex to respond to stimuli with automated, irrational emotions to block critical thought.

                      But keep “both sides, partisan!”ing it. It’d be a terrible loss for you to lose your false equivalence defense. Wouldn’t want to shatter your cooler-than-thou pose above the fray.

    2. “videos that promote guns, are anti-gay marriage, are anti-Muslim, etc”

      I think you make some good points with those. But most of the censorship seems to me more of the shadow ban variety. Where it’s not videos. Furthermore, a lot of that seems to extend to pro-life messages.

      Being anti-fetus doesn’t seem to get the same reaction.

      1. I’ll dig up a quote for you to show you what I’m talking about.

        “Marketers including Clorox Co. , Nestl? SA, McDonald’s Corp. and “Fortnite” publisher Epic Games Inc. halted their YouTube advertising on Wednesday following reports that their ads were appearing next to videos of young girls that were marred by inappropriate user comments.”

        http://www.wsj.com/articles/at…..550778819?

        February 21, 2019

        Notice, the problem for Clorox, Nestle, and McDonad’s isn’t the content of the video–which was perfectly innocent–but the comments under the video.

        I’m not talking about theoretical stuff here. I’m talking about advertising platforms who are having trouble keeping advertisers on board because of the comments people are writing. It used to be that advertising supported media controlled the content that was broadcast on their networks, but in social media, the content is created for free by users–and the platform has no control over that content in real time. Advertisers don’t want their advertising appearing anywhere near content that they don’t like, and they won’t advertise on a platform that can’t guarantee them that won’t happen.

        Regulation will not change the preferences of advertisers.

        1. Sure, and that’s a valid point with regards to Youtube videos. However, it doesn’t directly relate to this conversation. A bunch of men making pedofilliac comments on Youtube videos isn’t the speech that conservatives are trying to protect.

          1. So you’ve forgotten that’s what Milo talked about that finally crossed the line?

          2. It’s just one example.

            McDonalds doesn’t want their advertising to show up in threads about guns.

            Hell, Bud’s Gun Shop may not want their advertising to show up in a thread about guns in the aftermath of a mass shooting. Why would Coca Cola and Nestle want to be associated with a thread like that?

            Can you show me an example of an advertisement for an S&P 500 company that tries to use conservative issues as a means to advertise? Do any major S&P 500 companies advertise on right wing radio, or are they little two bit companies selling gold coins?

            Advertisers don’t want to be associated with that speech.

            When they’re on TV, the networks control the content to satisfy the advertisers. The advertisers want a show that appeals to women between the ages of 16 and 28, and the networks comes up with something to try to do that.

            Social media is an advertising platform in which the platform can’t control the content.

            1. “Can you show me an example of an advertisement for an S&P 500 company that tries to use conservative issues as a means to advertise? ”

              Well yes, pretty easily.

              Rush Limbaugh advertisers have included at some point the following: Capital One, John Deere, NetFlix, United Healthcare, etc

              1. Do you have a link for that?

                I go to his website and his Facebook page, and the only advertisement I see is for some small company that will negotiate with the IRS for you.

                Those sound like the kinds of advertisers he might attract. People looking to refinance, people who need farm equipment, people looking for a family healthcare plan. Were those sponsors of his radio program? Were they his sponsors when he was on network television? Are they still sponsoring him? If not, why not?

                I’d also add that if there’s an exception to the general rule, that doesn’t necessarily mean there isn’t a general rule. in fact, you can’t have an exception without a general rule, and the general rule is that politically conservative programming doesn’t tend to attract the kind of national advertising and advertisers that advertising platforms like Facebook and Twitter are trying to attract. And that would still be the case–even if Facebook and Twitter weren’t run by lefty hipsters.

          3. People come here to read the content you and I generate. Reason opens up comments because we generate content for them for free. They don’t even have to pay us to do it! That’s how Facebook and Twitter made billions, too. Their growth, however, is limited because the advertisers don’t want their advertising around the stuff that a lot of people like to talk about.

            This is why, “I Saw Your Mommy, and Your Mommy’s Dead” was never played on commercial radio back in the day. You can’t find big advertisers that want to be associated with that content. It’s the same thing with guns, abortion, immigration, gay marriage, etc., etc. The advertisers you can get to pay for that are like the advertisers during the Jerry Springer show. Dirtball PI Attorneys, pay day lenders, etc. That’s not like having an account with McDonalds, AT&T, or Nestle. You want advertisers like that, you have to be like Ellen. That’s what advertisers want.

            And it’s always been that way.

            1. Incidentally, it has long been the opinion of libertarians that advertisers are far better at censoring the content they sponsor than the FCC ever could be.

              1. all this ^^^

                >>>”I Saw Your Mommy, and Your Mommy’s Dead”

                brought to you by SC Johnson Wax, ha. “lying face-down in the sewer i looked closer and realized i knew her”

        2. I’m not sure you understand advertising, Ken.

          Advertisers want their stuff to show up in places that a lot of people will see, in situations in which a lot of people will be forced to look at their ad.

          They don’t actually care about the ‘woke’ parade–which is why we see them endlessly flailing about when they try to answer it.

          See, the idea that advertisers should be blamed for the positions of the programs their ads appear on works in ways that don’t quite follow.

          Get woke, go broke doesn’t always work.

          Nor does it’s opposite.

          No matter the content, or the uproar, what actually seems to work is the old standby—get your ad in front of as many eyes as possible.

          So advertisers face a dilemma.

          They HAVE to respond to the consumers–but they KNOW that the consumers caught just by the outburst.

          And thus, the flailing.

          1. “Advertisers want their stuff to show up in places that a lot of people will see, in situations in which a lot of people will be forced to look at their ad.”

            That’s the way some advertising works. Billboards along the highway work that way. Broadcast advertising works more like that than the targeted advertising that Facebook and Twitter are selling.

            Even in a broadcast medium, it doesn’t matter if Longmire draws a huge audience–if the audience it draws skews too old, then advertisers won’t pay much for it and the show gets canceled. And even when we’re talking about advertising that they want as many people to see as possible, the advertising is targeted to a specific audiences as much as they can. When you’re watching the NFL, you’ll see a lot of ads to join the Marines, for shaving products, for work trucks, and for beer. When you’re watching Kathie Lee and Hoda, that’s not the advertising you’re seeing.

            On Facebook and Twitter, they charge a premium from advertisers because they can narrow the advertising to even more specific demographic criteria. Targeted advertising isn’t about being seen by as many people as possible. It’s about being seen by the people most likely to buy your products–and not charging advertisers to show advertising to anyone but the intended viewers. They have a hard time delivering that when the comments on a pro-gay marriage thread skew both pro and anti gay marriage.

          2. “Gay marriage is an abomination to God, and you people should go back into the closet!” This message has been brought to you by the people McDonalds?! They won’t pay to be associated with that! Their slogan is “I’m lovin’ it!”, which is about as far from controversial as you can be. Look at their slogans. “It’s the real thing!” “It’s finger-lickin’ good!” What about national advertisers do you see that makes you think they want to be associated with controversial content? If you want controversial content, you have to go to a subscription service like HBO, buy a ticket and go to the theater–or get the content from some other business model that isn’t primarily supported by advertising.

  7. “Unfortunately, the opaqueness of their operational tactics allow unsubstantiated conspiracies to hold weight.”

    Somebody get Jesse Walker to DC, quick!

  8. Cruz’s beard makes him look less like Captain Smirk.

  9. Against conservatives, or against Trumpistas?

    If there’s one thing true is that so-called “conservatives” are nothing else but Fascists in conservative disguise, giving away the facade once Orange Potatoman came into the scene. Many closet doors were broken on that day. White supremacists, the economically illiterate xenophobes and the mercantilists all were able to breathe again and exclaim to the winds “Yes, papi! Give me some of that wall! Oh yeeeeesss!”

    I harbor total contempt for these “conservatives” who bemoan the supposed unfairness of social media and shed no teara for their predicament, the fuckers.

    1. When I see the spasmodic leftist twitching that your writing has begcome, I often wonder if you get moments of clarity in which your non-demented intellect re-asserts itself and you scream at your computer for that ever denied Reason ‘edit’ button.

    2. Oh, look, another pro government leftist turned temporary libertarian on the issue of big tech censorship. I wonder why on on this one issue?

      Of course I know why, though. The actual fascist Nazis of the left don’t care where which entity is wearing the boot as long as the heel is being used to crush conservatives.

      F all leftists in this country. Silence the right if you want; just know that silence means your next encounter will be on the battlefield. Not a threat from me, just a guarantee from someone who’s studied history.

  10. I am not what the justification is for having the section 230 litigation protections and being cagey about the ideological criteria on which you ban content and users for. I am not how that can work both ways.

    For instance, Twitter banning someone for “misgendering” someone is an ideological position. They say they are neutral but their actions say otherwise.

    1. Agreed, the governmental market interference should be removed once you start taking an editorial position that has an obvious tilt.

      1. ^ This is the crux of the issue.

        1. And for some reason Binion thinks they should be able to have their cake and eat it to.

          1. Only if that cake advances the Glorious Revolution, Comrade!

  11. “Whether or not social media platforms push an anti-conservative agenda has been a matter of ongoing debate, as much of the evidence is anecdotal.”

    LOL. you can’t be serious. now you need us to fact check you, essentially proving how worthless and slanted journalists are?

    1. Well he’s technically correct. It is a matter of ongoing debate. Granted, the debate is primarily between those who claim they lean to the Left but not to the point of editorial bias and to those who claim that they do engage in editorial bias.

      There’s not too much debate that Twitter and Facebook don’t have some amount of Left wing bias.

      And most of the evidence is anecdotal, but not All of course.

      “Until now, conservatives have had to rely on anecdotes to make their case. … Of 22 prominent, politically active individuals who are known to have been suspended since 2005 and who expressed a preference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, 21 supported Donald Trump.”

      Quillette

      1. Of 22 prominent, politically active individuals who are known to have been suspended since 2005

        End. Of. The. World.

        1. If the Hag losing got us a special prosecutor then this certainly calls for at least a Congressional investigation.

          1. I’m not sure how Hillary is involved now.

        2. >>>End. Of. The. World.

          lol. exactly.

          1. Eventually you’ll realize that these companies are doing it on purpose they can be the writers of European style regulation of the internet. They punch so that there’s a counter punch. So yea I do consider this a big deal. Even Shikha admits leftism is the initial action that gets a right wing reaction.

            But it’s progressives pushing totalitarianism so you all will turn away and blame Trump somehow.

            1. What Shika will not admit is that modern leftism is often a reaction to the changes brought by classical liberalism.

              Progressivism being nothing more than the imposition of a different sort of aristocracy.

  12. John Kerry, an elite Yale grad who got a D in every science course he took, presumes to criticize Thomas Massie’s understanding of science. Seriously?

    Reminds me of the asshat IRS commissioner who presumed to lecture Massie on probability and statistics.

    Unlike Kerry’s experience at Yale, MIT doesn’t sell its STEM degrees to privileged children.

  13. The only regulation these entities should face is the legal recognition that, by exercising editorial control, they are publishers not neutral platforms.

    1. It’s literally the only issue and if you can write a whole post without mentioning it- it’s becasue you are a shill.

  14. Gee, I wonder what Milton Friedman would do here?

  15. The key issue here is that Fakebook and Gooble have been allowed to moderate content, in other words edit, like a newspaper does. However, newspapers are responsible for libel, slander, etc. (just as the Washington Post). The big internet media giants have had it both ways. Not responsible for content (because it they said it would be impossible to curate it all) and yet free to curate as they please.

    The libertarian position that the sites are private, and they therefore should be free to curate are spot on . HOWEVER, they should also have the liability that goes with that status. The current problem is a result of their special status and having, from their position, all the the privileges and none of the liabilities.

    1. Yes, and Reason authors failing to note that this special status is government granted is extra ripe irony.

  16. Authoritarian Senate Republicans can huff and puff as they wish. So long as Democrats control the House, it’s just more ineffectual right-wing ranting designed to lather the rubes and support the yahoo-targeting direct mail industry.

  17. >>>If that happened, Facebook and Twitter would be liable for any and all libelous comments made on their sites

    oy. leave FB and Twitter to die on their own. jeebus whatthefuck *happened* to you, Ted Cruz?

    1. Why should they have special governmental protections from lawsuits?

      1. lawsuits based on moron-comments @ a website are ridiculous … libel? bad press is good press; defamation is almost impossible in 2019.

        1. Increasing juries are nullifying that perspective. It started with Gawker but freedom loving Americans everywhere are standing up and saying no oligarchical guild protections. Down with the media samurai caste. Warms my heart as a freedom lover to see entrenched castes dragged down from their perch.

  18. One thing is for certain. The current situation cannot be allowed to continue. CNN, MSNBC and many other leftist news outlets have been pumping out conspiracy theories about Trump being Putin’s puppet and his connections to Russia which do not exist for the last 2 years and yet Twitter and You Tube continue to allow them to spout out these debunked theories.
    There is absolute bias on these platforms and there is no way for anyone who is banned from these sites to appeal to a third party arbitrator or any way for them to cite other people who are not banned for the same reason. It is beyond doubt that there is a massive bias and complete inconsistency in how these sites apply their own rules.
    At the very least, an independent team must be set up before anyone over a certain amount of subscribers is banned and that person must be given the chance to defend himself. I’d suggest around 100,000 subscribers. I suspect around this number is the point when the this is the sole source of income for the person. This decision must be taken out of the hands of the site who are absolutely not impartial

  19. It never ceases to irk me that Reason writers appear to fervently believe that enforcing existing law regarding viewpoint discrimination–as well as enforcing contracts entered into freely is the ‘bad’ side of this issue.

    These providers all agreed to certain provisions to gain the benefits of being a ‘platform’. They are openly violating those provisions.

    They also entered into contracts with creators. Contracts that they are also violating.

    And the Senate wanting to stop them from doing this is wrong?

    1. You sure you aren’t new here? We’re talking about the left attacking the right. They DGAF about that

    2. Reason also cannot seem to understand that ‘heads I win, tails you lose’ is not an enforceable ToS.

    3. Corporations Uber alles. Show me where that doesn’t describe reason’s point of view. It’s literalt corporatacracy.

  20. LOL, the lower part of that guy’s face looks like Anthony Ainley as the Master.

  21. Seeing that Facebook ban adds from Sen. Warren, perhaps how they regulate content is more complicated than Left vs. Right… or it’s simply that Facebook is biased against those who speak out against the company.

    Both Parties do seem to demand intervention on Social Media even tho they claim it for slightly different reasons, however what is really needed is less State Interventions on Social Media. In Fact the only thing that should be regulating Privately Operated Social Media is a Free Market, and there have been competitors to bigger Social Media platforms like Minds and Gab, and without any sort of State Intervention better competition will arise in response to claims of Social Media Censorship and the current big platforms will have to change their practices or go under, but getting Government involve will tend to make things worst than before. As Stossel repeatedly pointed out, owners of private businesses can and had taken advantage of the State so that they can give their competition a disadvantage and help their own business to become a Monopoly and ironically harm Capitalism in the Process, and seeing how Zuckerberg seems to be very cooperative with the Government it’s more likely than not that his intention is to use the Government to disadvantage his competition, and if Facebook becomes a Monopoly then they can basically do whatever they want with hardly any accountability. So to sum up, State intervention on Private Social Media can cause more problems then it solves

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.