Social Media

Senators Once Again Berate Twitter and Facebook CEOs for Content Decisions They Dislike

But what one side likes, the other side hates. There's no way Twitter and Facebook can appease them both.

|

On Tuesday morning, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey once again appeared before Congress to answer questions about their companies' content moderation decisions. This time, the public grilling was premised on how the two social media giants handled information related to the 2020 election. But like previous forays into probing the business practices of Facebook and Twitter, this onewhich is still ongoing as I write thisquickly turned into a bipartisan grievance fest that had little to do with realistic regulation of online speech or U.S. tech companies (or current American law).

Instead, Senate Democrats and Republicans spent the first few hours of the hearing pummeling the tech CEOs with a litany of partisan grievances and culture war talking points related to election content.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R–S.C.) blasted Twitter and Facebook for trying to keep users engaged in a way that could possibly "create a health hazard over time" and suggested they had "editorial control over the New York Post" because "they decidedmaybe for a good reason, I don't knowthat the New York Post articles about Hunter Biden needed to be flagged, excluded from distribution, or made hard to find."

Sen. Mike Lee (R–Utah) grilled Zuckerberg over Facebook's political donations and the decision to ban two ads, deemed by Facebook third-party fact-checkers to be "partly false information," concerning the Biden/Harris presidential ticket and abortion. He grilled Dorsey over temporarily suspending the account of a government official.

Meanwhile, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D–Calif.) suggested Twitter's handling of Trump's election fraud tweetson which it has affixed labels contesting certain claims and linking to more informationwas not a strong enough effort to stop the spread of misinformation.

Once again, Republican lawmakers called for fewer limits on contentor at least, certain kinds of itwhile Democrats called for more curation. There's no way Facebook and Twitter can appease both sides…which is why we get this muddled, ever-changing, make-no-one-happy response to social media content moderation.

Of course, both sides agree that they should get more say over the decisions of a private company and the speech of its myriad users.

On Tuesday morning, senators kept blaming the federal communications statute Section 230 for any and all issues with social companies failing to strike the right content balance. This lets them give the impression that there are special rules allowing Big Tech to get away with bad behavior, but the underlying decisions and behavior they object to suggests they're really just mad at the First Amendment and free markets.

"The thing that @LindseyGrahamSC is misleading everyone about right now is that it's not #Section230 he's mad at, it's the 1st Amendment," tweeted Techdirt Editor in Chief Mike Masnick.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D–Conn.) also "seems to hate the 1st Amendment, not #Section230," Masnick added

Sen. John Cornyn (R–Texas) suggested that private businesses in any way limiting or commenting on speech by government officials was illegal censorship, while the government dictating what speech is not or must be allowed on a private platform is not a First Amendment violation. The exact opposite is true, of course, and none of that is because of Section 230.

"The underlying tone of this hearing is existential angst over the emerging divide about how consensual reality is negotiated. When we had three TV networks, three newspapers, and a couple of big Churches this was all much easier," commented Kristian Stout, director of innovation policy at the International Center for Law and Economics, on Twitter.

This has been the overarching tone of government policy concerning the intersection of speech and technology for years, and it's why we've seen them going after the same few companies with such a wide array of accusationssex crimes, antitrust violations, political bias, election interference, warping children's brains, creating hate crimes, and much more. They're throwing whatever they've got at digital companies in a desperate attempt to regain control of the information environment. It's a doomed battle in the end—and a mighty tedious one along the way.

NEXT: Red State COVID vs. Blue State COVID

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. Why would they berate him for anything but that mangy-ass beard? I myself am a bearded man, but that thing has got to have its own ecosystem.

    1. I used to have a beard… then she divorced me.

      *BAM*

      I’m here all week.

      1. I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/hr. How? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new… after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier. Here’s what I do… WORK24HERE

        1. MAGA 2020!!!
          Google is by and by paying $27485 to $29658 consistently for taking a shot at the web from home. I have joined this action 2 months back and I have earned $31547 in my first month from this action. I can say my life is improved completely! Take a gander at it

          what I do………work92/7 online

    2. speaking of beards I notice a lot of people when leaving places that require mask then just move their mask down to their beard or chin which has been collecting all sorts of things the mask was meant to protect you from but have now transferred that to the inside of the mask making it useless.

      1. I wear mine almost exclusively below my mouth, on my beard.
        No plague yet

      2. Well I haven’t washed my mask since this began. I figure a layer of bacteria will help keep the virus out (got to be better then a thin layer of fabric) and will fight the Covid for domination over my body. Hey sometimes you need to hold your nose and vote for the lesser of two evils.

        1. Pro tip: Coffee spills help to deodorize and remove mask odors

      3. Remember when people wearing N95s with facial hair was a waste because the facial hair disrupted the seal/circulation and essentially rendered the mask useless?

        Neither do I. Totally explains why everyone I see with a full beard wearing a mask that’s a full inch off their face is still doing the right thing.

    3. Why would they berate him for anything but that mangy-ass beard?

      The nose ring makes the beard look well-thought out and distinguished. Nose rings are cute on teen girls. On adult men it looks like a desperate attempt to win the attention of teen girls.

    4. I am now making more than 350 dollars per day by working online from home without investing any money.Join this link posting job now and start earning without investing or selling anything.

      Follow Instructions Here……. Home Profit System

    5. I am now making more than 350 dollars per day by working online from home without investing any money.Join this link posting job now and start earning without investing (yes) or selling anything.

      Follow Instructions Here……. Home Profit System

  2. Instead, Senate Democrats and Republicans spent the first few hours of the hearing pummeling the tech CEOs…

    Why bother? Their elections are over.

  3. One side wants far less censorship. One side wants far more.

    Libertarians: A POX ON BOTH YOUR HOUSES.

    God you people are fucking idiots.

    1. God damn totalitarian assholes! Like ones who would want to “paper over” the ugly results of their totalitarianism, with MORE totalitarianism!

      Hey damikesc, you totalitarian asshole! How is your plan coming along, to FORCE people to buy Reason magazine?

      Free speech (freedom from “Cancel Culture”) comes from Facebook, Twitter, Tik-Tok, and Google, right? THAT is why we need to pass laws to prohibit these DANGEROUS companies (which, ugh!, the BASTARDS, put profits above people!)!!! We must pass new laws to retract “Section 230” and FORCE the evil corporations to provide us all (EXCEPT for my political enemies, of course!) with a “UBIFS”, a Universal Basic Income of Free Speech!

      So leftist “false flag” commenters will inundate Reason-dot-com with shitloads of PROTECTED racist comments, and then pissed-off readers and advertisers and buyers (of Reason magazine) will all BOYCOTT Reason! And right-wing idiots like Damikesc will then FORCE people to support Reason, so as to nullify the attempts at boycotts! THAT is your ultimate authoritarian “fix” here!!!

      “Now, to “protect” Reason from this meddling here, are we going to REQUIRE readers and advertisers to support Reason, to protect Reason from boycotts?”
      Yup. Basically. Sounds rough. (Quote damikesc)
      (Etc.)
      See https://reason.com/2020/06/24/the-new-censors/#comments

      1. Take your Adderall, Sqrls dear… and maybe try to use the toilet next time like we discussed with Dr. Rosenberg.

        1. SQRLSY One
          November.9.2020 at 4:26 pm
          Bimsday, 39 Bemberbember 2020 at 6:66 PM
          I love to LIE my ass off, and suck Satan’s dick! Because I hate humanity! The Evil One is the Father of Lies, just as Der TrumpfenFuhrer is the Stable Genius! So, as the apple falls not far from the tree, I INSIST on telling obvious lies, all day, every day! Butt… Surprise, surprise! Other Evil Ones Junior will fall for my lies… Because they want to!

          1. Mother’s Lament
            Bimbosday, 43 Bimbobember 2020 at 6:66 PM

            I lust after being abused by power-mad politicians, because I am power-mad myself! And I suffer under the utterly stupid illusion that power-mad politicians will feed me, like a doggy under the table, a wee few, tiny scraps of their vast powers. Biden came up here to Canoodlestanistanistanistanistan to noodle me and my poodle, and give me nookie, with my Wookie and my bookie, but all that Biden would do, is smell my hair! So I lust after Der TrumpfenFuhrer to come up here and grab my pussy good and hard!

      2. False flag, refresh!

        1. Whoa! PhD Computer Scientist here has figured out how to move the mouse-cursor, and click on the flag icon! Congratulations, Stable Genius Junior! Maybe You could write Your NEXT Computer Science PhD thesis on HOW You do that? And thread-clutter-post it EVERY FUCKIN’ TIME that you see a post that you disagree with? And expect all the OTHER marching morons to THANK you profusely?

          Well now… Have You and any of the other marching morons ever heard of “The Boy Who Cried ‘Wolf’?” Has it ever occurred to You, that the moderators will immediately ignore You and Yours? Now, when the time comes that Reason.com gets hacked, and some hacker posts a child-porn link to video of YOUR kid or relative’s kids… Or YOU abusing YOUR kid, or “doxes” You and Your SSN, real name, home address, and photo… OR, they post the IP address and WIP security key, access codes, etc., to the self-destruct mechanism in your battery-driven “IP of All Things” MAGA-magic underwear… And You (“The Boy Who Cried ‘Wolf'”) will FLAG the post that unveils all such things… You will be IGNORED, asshole!

          You ever think of THAT, asshole who cried wolf? I, for one, will NOT flag it when they “dox” you!!! Learn your lessons by SUFFERING, ye who will NOT learn otherwise!

          1. I just flag you, shitposter. Just you and your KillMyselfRedneck sock.

            Flag. Refresh. Bye bye.

            1. When Reason.com database gets hacked, and you get doxed, I will ***NOT*** flag the doxer for you, asshole who cries wolf!

    2. Remember, Reason knows libertarian philosophy is strictly a political philosophy and only applies to the American government.

      Encouraging individuals and corporations to use libertarian principles and not censor, book-burn, dox, harrass and cancel is practically Hitler or something.

      Unless you’re some sort of Christian baker, then you should bake the cake, bigot.

    3. One wants the government to make dictates on how tech companies make decisions within their own organization and the other wants the government to make dictates on how tech companies make decisions within their own organization. Private property means only the owners of said property gets to make those kind of dictates.

      1. We advocate treating them like media companies.

        1. More like any other company really.

          1. See I am for that, every company should be free to exercise their right to refuse service to anyone they want for any reason as long as any contract entered into is followed. I don’t want to see social media companies lose their rights, just because others have.

            1. Mind you, Reason applauded usage of those laws to punish people who opposed gay marriage.

                1. Liar?

                  What is up with the trolls and the “citation” stupidity.

                  He’s talking about cake bakers, that totally contrived example-making spell we went through after SCOTUS took the gay marriage issue out of the political sphere.

                  It is a perfect counter to this “they are a private company” argument.

                  Idiot cake baker was a private company too… but the state came with their guns and said “bake them a cake as fast as you can”, even though they didn’t want to.

                  1. Damikesc accused Reason.com of saying things that I do not recall them ever saying. I think damikesc is lying! Since he can’t post a link to Reason.com writers backing up the “cake-baking police” here, it is safe to assume that he (she?) IS lying! Here we have ONE decent magazine left (“Liberty” died years ago), and ONE decent web site, that promotes Libertarian (pro-individual-freedom) thought, and lying authoritarians come here to slam them all day with lies! I, for one, much resent it! They (liars) need to be refuted!

            2. I don’t want to see social media companies lose their rights, just because others have.

              Depending on what you’re saying, they aren’t losing any rights, they would/could be losing special protections. Go read Cox and Wyden’s statements at the time they were writing S230. They felt that Cubby v. Compuserve (as well as Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy) was wrongly decided and that companies that in no way moderate their forums *should* face greater liability for the content of those forums, for the good of the internet.

            3. The contracts aren’t being followed. They are being arbitrarily applied. This was discussed only by the GOP side today, see Cruz. The narrative put forth in this article is false.

              1. The narrative put forth in every Reason article is false. Why should this one be any different.

      2. Yes, government should indeed leave them alone. Government can start by removing the special government granted protections Section 230 affords them.

        Private property means only the owners of said property get to deal with the consequences of their own dictates.

        1. Twitter is a publisher, they should be treated like every other publisher.

          1. So there has been a case or 2 (or more?) of newspapers sued for the WRITINGS OF LETTER TO THE EDITOR writers! How would YOU, ThomasD, like to be punished for what I have written?!? Sound fair to you? This is just blood-thirsty lawyers looking for the deepest pockets!

            Black man gets strangled to death for suspicion for selling “loosies”… Your “fix”? To make it FAIR to Eric Garner for this, let’s NOT bother to reign in power-mad cops; let’s go kill some Hispanic, White, and Asian men as well, for suspicion for selling “loosies”!!!

            This is Thomas D. Power-mad logic at its finest!

            1. Surely your computer or phone is out of exclamation points by now.

              1. Exclamations remind him of his favorite snack.

      3. One group constantly brought up arbitrary enforcement of their contractual rules while the other wanted more arbitrary application.

        Amazing how some of you are fine with this.

    4. Why do you think that you, the government, or anyone other than Facebook gets to decide how they design their products?

      1. Because damikesc is a totalitarian,is why!

        OPEN QUESTIONS FOR ALL ENEMIES OF SECTION 230

        The day after tomorrow, you get a jury summons. You will be asked to rule in the following case: A poster posted the following to social media: “Government Almighty LOVES US ALL, FAR more than we can EVER know!”

        This attracted protests from liberals, who thought that they may have detected hints of sarcasm, which was hurtful, and invalidated the personhoods of a few Sensitive Souls. It ALSO attracted protests from conservatives, who were miffed that this was a PARTIAL truth only (thereby being at least partially a lie), with the REAL, full TRUTH AND ONLY THE TRUTH being, “Government Almighty of Der TrumpfenFuhrer ONLY, LOVES US ALL, FAR more than we can EVER know! Thou shalt have NO Government Almighty without Der TrumpfenFuhrer, for Our TrumpfenFuhrer is a jealous Government Almighty!”

        Ministry of Truth, and Ministry of Hurt Baby Feelings, officials were consulted. Now there are charges!

        QUESTIONS FOR YOU THE JUROR:

        “Government Almighty LOVES US ALL”, true or false?

        “Government Almighty LOVES US ALL”, hurtful sarcasm or not?

        Will you be utterly delighted to serve on this jury? Keep in mind that OJ Simpson got an 11-month criminal trial! And a 4-month civil trial!

      2. “”Why do you think that you, the government, or anyone other than Facebook gets to decide how they design their products?””

        I agree, unless Facebook is acting under the force of government and not of their own freewill.

      3. They decided to design a contract that they use for leverage. On any other industry said contracts would be considered unconscionable.

    5. The side that wants less censorship only wants that because it’s mostly their side’s ideas that are being suppressed. The reason to condemn both sides is that their attitude toward censorship/suppression of ideas is entirely based on whether or not they agree or disagree with the ideas that are most frequently being suppressed.

      Remember back in the ancient times of 2016-2017 when the people who now want far more censorship to be done by social media platforms were claiming to be willing to die on the hill of “Net Neutrality” because of the danger of cable-based ISPs somehow gaining a fraction of the market dominance that twitter, google/alphabet, and facebook have and then possibly using that power to control access to information/audiences or otherwise restrict people’s freedom of speech?

      It’s amazing how seamlessly they transitioned from scaring their constituents about the dangers of a small number of “big corporations” having so much control over the flow of information to scaring their constituents about the dangers of a smaller number of much larger corporations NOT exercising tighter control over the flow of information.

  4. https://twitter.com/laralogan/status/1328578885102034944?s=19

    For those of us who have been around a long time, I can say with absolute certainty that this does not resemble anything a real/credible journalist should be doing – Andy Ngo deserves better. We stand with you.

    1. Want to know what a journalist really thinks? Go to his twitter page. Best tool in journalism since the printing press.

      1. Look, that gay korean dude is clearly a racist. And a homophobe.

        Do you even intersectional?

        1. It’s just so hard to keep up!

        2. A gay homophobe? How do you pull that one off?

          1. self-hatred and projection not exclusive to the heterosexuals among us.

            1. I wonder how that works with a female misogynist.

              If I’m self-hating, does that make me trans? Where do I fall on the intersectional victimhood now?

            2. See Tony for details.

          2. A gay homophobe? How do you pull that one off?

            I would presume the same way a female prostitute would.

          3. A gay homophobe? How do you pull that one off?

            Ask the black people, who are called white supremacists.

          4. The intersectionalists changed the definitions again, now being “gay” has to do with embracing a particular political viewpoint and not who you’re rubbing genitals with. Dave Rubin mentioned on his pod the other day that he just found out that despite being married to a man, he’s no longer “gay” because he doesn’t toe the proper ideological line.

            Also, all Asian ethnicities are apparently now “white”, so just because Andy Ngo has ancestry coming from the Korean peninsula and spends his “sexy time” with other men doesn’t make him any sort of minority acccording to the latest edition of the Newspeak dictionary.

      2. No shit. If I was an EiC, I’d let my reporters know if they have time to be on Twitter, they aren’t earning their keep here and firing them all. Journalism grads are less than a dime a dozen.

    2. The great majority of journalists are what they are–bought and paid for tools for the ruling class, that is to say, government and oligarchs.

      Just get over the illusion that these people should be governed by some code of ethics, because there is none.

    3. Call to violence? Check.
      Specific threat? Check.
      Targeting at a minority because of their minority-ness? Check.

      Section 230: Selectively preserving public threats of violence since 1996!

      1. Good point. This language is precisely what Twitter claims they ban people for.

    4. I’ve been repeatedly assured by other lying pieces of shit just like that one that Antifa is “just an idea”. So how exactly does “just an idea” crack someone’s skull?

  5. This author doesn’t get it. Its not difficult material.

    1. Doesn’t want to get it.

  6. Are we really having trouble figuring out this answer at a libertarian outlet?

    This one is really easy. You don’t ban people for having political opinions you disagree with. You don’t suppress stories in order to help one side of a political argument.

    Sheesh. Do we even libertarian anymore?

    Civil liberties used to be pretty black and white.

    1. Reason hasn’t figured out yet how to be pro censorship (by the left) and somewhat maintain appearances, so Both Sidez! it is.

      1. It’s not the left, it’s anti-Trump. If Trump had run as a Democrat, they’d be shilling for the right.

        1. Bullshit. They’re leftists so they despise any Republican

    2. They’re privately owned sites. Sure it sucks they do that stuff but if that’s how they want to run their site they have every right to because they’re privately owned.

      I don’t agree with it but I sure as hell don’t want the government interfering in the free market like this.

      1. Extraordinary pre-emptive protections from facing suit are government interference in the market.

      2. What other industries should we allow the type of contractual issues these companies have? Bait and switches are now legal? Random changes to terms of service after capture occurs?

        Stop thinking at the level of a bumper sticker.

        1. It’s their privately owned businesses, the government doesn’t get to allow anything because they should have no say in how those businesses are run.

          If a private company wants to bait and switch that’s their right do so, if they want to change the ToS that’s also their right to do so. The government should have no right to tell these companies how to do business.

          Instead of wanting the government to step in and tell these companies what to do instead people could let the free market decide and use a different site.

          I’m not a fan of the censoring Twitter and FaceBook does but I sure as heck don’t want the government stepping in over it. I just won’t use Twitter or FaceBook.

      3. Do you want the government to interfere with the free market like Section 230, which grants government protection that other publishers of open content don’t have?

      4. I get the argument that it’s not unconstitutional censorship if it’s done by a private company, and that the companies in question wanting to control what’s sent on their platforms is within their prerogatives.

        What I don’t get is Reason coming out against removing Section 230 protections from these platforms (which was designed to promote free communication on such platforms). If they’re going to curate what content is sent via their platforms, then they shouldn’t also expect protection from liability for that content. Companies both expecting Sect, 230 protection and the right to exercise editorial control over their systems.

    3. This isn’t a libertarian outlet. It’s a bunch of liberals pretending to be libertarian.

      1. And one communist named Shikha.

      2. Worse, they are libertarians. Not in the sense of classical liberals/libertarians having principles based around individual liberty and personal responsibility but in the sense modern sense of short-sighted and peevish useful idiots who revel in the fact that they spoil elections in favor of socialists.

    4. “You don’t ban people for having political opinions you disagree with. You don’t suppress stories in order to help one side of a political argument.”

      Actually, you can do either of those things if you want on your own website

      1. Do you want to earn cash online from your living room, easily work with a laptop for a few hours a day, earn 550-650 euros a day and get paid every week by deciding on your working hours? it is all true and completely changed my life. Then try this. Here is More information.

      2. All those companies have contracts you agree to stating they won’t moderate based on politics you fucking dumbass. They lie. No other industry would get away with this.

        1. And even if they didn’t, it is still wrong. Wrong and illegal are not the same thing.

          We now have the technology to monitor telephone conversations exactly as we do twitter conversations. Should Verizon monitor speech for pro-trump content and block those calls?

          If you say “no”, then you are on my side of the argument.

          Not “can they”. “Should” they.

          Publishing a magazine or newspaper or even running a TV station is not the same thing as Twitter, YouTube or Facebook. That is more akin to the phone company or the people who make TV transmitters and cameras.

          Conspiring together as they have to control political discourse in this country is dangerous to freedom and democracy. You really shouldn’t need a primer on why that is the case if you are an American. We have an entire history based directly upon that simple concept. We have come a long way from the days of soap boxes and printing presses, but the ideas and ideals are eternal.

    5. Bwaaaaaahahahahaha @
      “This one is really easy. You don’t ban people for having political opinions you disagree with. You don’t suppress stories in order to help one side of a political argument.”

      That’s a Libertarian answer? I highly doubt that. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Twitter and any other social networking site can do whatever the fuck they want. If you don’t really like it, you don’t have to use it. There are other sites like Parler and such that will more than welcome a far right crazy ass person like a lot of people here. Leave Twitter for the far left crazies. Who really cares.

      1. This is libertarianism for simpletons. “should” and “legal” are not remotely the same.

        Back in the 1790’s, all of the paper manufacturers, ink manufacturers and printing press manufacturers could have conspired together to deny their products and services to people who supported the Federalist party. Banks and lawyers could have similarly boycotted them.

        That doesn’t make it right, and it certainly doesn’t make for a strong democracy – or a fundamentally free society.

  7. There’s no way Twitter and Facebook can appease them both.

    True, but there is a way you can appease libertarians and yes, conservatives too. I’ll let you figure out what that is.

    1. there is a way you can appease libertarians and yes, conservatives too

      Several actually. Whining about having your cake, eating it too, and then telling all your users and customers who can and can’t have cake is not it.

  8. The fundamental problem is not § 230, but the legal environment which made §230 a “reasonable” fix. Everyone who thinks § 230 should be fixed is just another idiot trying to put a bandaid on a bandaid.

    1. I stay out of section 230 fights because I’m not so cock-sure about what the ‘fix’ is.

      I think that social networking forums should NOT be held liable for what users post on their platforms. I also think that a private platform should be able to police its forums as it sees fit.

      I also think that the Silicon Valley tech companies are the spawn of Satan and have outwardly attempted to shape public opinion through a hypocritical system of continually-shifting Trust and Safety Terms of Service guidelines that they’ve outright lied about, and ultimately have given the DNC about 10 years of in-kind contributions.

      1. LOL! The whole thing is silly.

        Facebook was created so that people could continue to act out their mean girl fantasies long after high school. Uncle Jimmy gets so drunk he doesn’t remember that you yelled at him at Thanksgiving last year, but being able to ‘unfriend’ him when he is sober and sorrowful is passive-aggressive heaven.

        Twitter is something that should never have existed. It is a world-wide cesspool of brain-diarrhea.

        If you are being ‘influenced’ by social media, you are doing life wrong.

      2. Part of the problem is copyright laws, worldwide, that now make so much material illegal to copy that respect for copyright has been destroyed for generations to come. At least in the USA, and I’m sure in many other countries, you can’t trim back protection on existing works, because that’s now part of the owner’s property, and most of the advanced world has legal protections against arbitrary deprivation of property. So that problem is intractable.

  9. Right we should do nothing at all and hope it works out for the best. That has been the liberaltarian position default.

    1. Damned straight! Generally, for most issues, all that Government Almighty does, is fuck things up!

    2. Good job, you’ve finally figured it out.

    3. We should do nothing, except ignoring what has already been done, and hope that everything works out for the best.

      Forget all the laws and bad economic decisions that lead up to the formation of bread lines and just hope that things will get better without repealing the laws or abandoning the policies. Mao Biden will save us!

  10. “Senators Once Again Berate Twitter and Facebook CEOs for Content Decisions They Dislike”

    A better headline
    Libertarians Once Again Berate ENB and Reason for Content Decisions They Dislike

    1. Explain to me why libertarian principles only apply to government and shouldn’t be encouraged in society as a whole by an ostensibly libertarian magazine.

      You wouldn’t endorse Churches censoring their congregants or burning books, so why is it cool for platform barons?
      Just because it shouldn’t be illegal, doesn’t mean what they’re doing is good and right.

      1. “Just because it shouldn’t be illegal, doesn’t mean what they’re doing is good and right.”

        Well duh, Mamma, have you actually internalized that yet?

        Divorce is bad! Let’s outlaw divorce!

        “Libertarian principles only apply to government” because Libertarianism is a POLITICAL MOVEMENT having to do with minimizing Government Almighty! Libertarianism says you are free to use free speech to persuade people about other crap! But NOT to use Government Almighty force for that kind of crap! Should Libertarianism be taking stances on whether model airplanes are a better hobby than raising rabbits? You lose your focus, you lose your message! Hello?!?! Is there anyone IN THERE?!?!

      2. “Explain to me why libertarian principles only apply to government and shouldn’t be encouraged in society as a whole by an ostensibly libertarian magazine.”

        Yikes

        1. “Gee, why can’t Libertarian ideas take root in a society where the people who control discourse utterly loathe them and silence them? Why, I think those groups need rights above what we give to any other company. That’s the fix!!!”

          The LP is a joke and will always remain a joke for good reason.

          1. “…a society where the people who control discourse utterly loathe them and silence them?”

            Hey totalitarian idiot! You just splattered your idiotic blatherings for all to see! At ZERO costs to YOU! WHO silenced YOU? Are you now gonna go whine and cry to Reason.com for “silencing” you? Why don’t you ask Reason.com for your $0,000,000.000.00 back? Is there ANY limit to your whining, lying, and crying, crybaby?

      3. You mean, libertarian principles like private property?

        If you are on my property and you started praising Trump, I would have, and ought to have, every right to “censor” you, meaning, tell you to shut up and kick you off my property. Those are my property rights in action.

        Now you could appeal to my broad-minded conscience and try to persuade me that I should allow free and open discourse on any subject, in the spirit of open inquiry. And who knows, I might even agree with you depending on my mood. But that is my decision to make, not yours, and not the state’s.

        THAT is the libertarian principle in action.

        It is UNLIBERTARIAN to tell private property owners that they ought to be forced to put up with speech that they disagree with on their own property.

        1. That horse got out of the barn several decades ago with the PruneYard decision, in which the US Supreme Court said that the wording of he free speech provisions in many, maybe most state constitutions meant that where privately-owned shopping centers replaced the public streets where traffic used to go, that they had to cede the public forum role the street corner used to have there, and that persons had to be allowed, subject only to reasonable rules imposed by the property owner, to speak, leaflet, and petition there.

          See, most state constitutions don’t say the equivalent of “Congress shall make no law” on such matters. Rather, they say things like, the freedom of speech and of the press of persons are inviolate in that state, subject to responsibility for what they say.

          1. Of course if eminent domain is used to build a shopping center, can you really argue effectively that the people have not been deprived of a free speech forum by the replacement of a street corner by an enclosed pedestrian or vehicular mall, unless the owner allows approximately the same access people were entitled to in the commons that was there previously? And in many already-developed places, it would be difficult to build a shopping center without some use of eminent domain.

        2. It is amazing how the idiot leftists missed the point. Princioles should apply everywhere fucktard. That is what he stated.

  11. they wouldn’t put my comment on their site dammit. moar lawz!

    1. Dillinger gets it! Yay for Dillinger!!!

  12. https://twitter.com/Timcast/status/1328551201684791296?s=19

    800 for Trump is already historic margins and its one county…

    Wtf…

  13. https://twitter.com/DavidLimbaugh/status/1328711817426833409?s=19

    The left is simply censorious. For them to say they have the right to censor “hate speech” is to say they have the right to censor. The term “hate speech” is a sinister term coined to empower totalitarian leftists to silence opposing views. Anything they disagree with is hate.

  14. It’s funny watching Ted Cruz complain about monopolies wherein Google has 90% of a voluntary market and he barely got 50% of the votes running against a moron advocating gun confiscation in TEXAS! If you don’t like Google, use Bing or DuckDuckGo. If you don’t like Cruz as your senator you’re stuck until either the next election or you move to another state.

    1. Google used California and Federal programs and relief, as well as anti-competitive practices to get where they are today.
      They didn’t just emerge ex-nihilo as the juggernaut that they now are.

    2. It’s funny to hear someone acknowledge that a company who holds 90% of the market share is more of a monopoly than someone who barely got 50.

      If you don’t like Cruz as your Senator, go build your own Texas.

  15. https://twitter.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1328516073923100672?s=19

    Build. Back. Better.

    I know it’s odd, but when I hear a bunch of powerful people spread out all over the world suddenly use the same totally improbable lame invariant phrase, my hand involuntarily clamps down over my wallet. Almost like they need to chant before taking my stuff.

    1. I know it’s odd, but when I hear a bunch of powerful people spread out all over the world suddenly use the same totally improbable lame invariant phrase, my hand involuntarily clamps down over my wallet.

      That is odd but I have a similar allergy that makes my index finger itchy.

  16. Why is congress interviewing that homeless guy?

  17. These tech CEOs are the biggest bunch of serfs I’ve ever seen. It’s as if they prefaced every statement with “Yes, my Lord Cruz” or “By your leave, Lord Leahy”. Not one dared say “You have no authority to tell me how to run my business”

    These cowards will get what they deserve and justify it to themselves knowing that regulation will do more damage to their smaller competitors than it will to them.

    1. They are going to get exactly what they want, which is a regulatory regime designed around their existing products and platforms, with a bunch of useful idiot “conservatives”‘ help

      1. I’d prefer they lose all their legal protections and be treated like, say, any media entity. If they’re able to unilaterally add stuff to texts, how do they differ from publishers?

  18. https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1328767358693994496?s=19

    ‘To Kill a Mockingbird,’ other classics banned in L.A. schools.

    1. To be fair, LAUSD may just be upset that kids are still learning how to read at all.

  19. Facebook, Twitter, and Google are the anti-White thought police that censors the truth about White Genocide.
    If anti-White ideas are so good, why do pro-White truths have to be censored? Pro-White truths would slow the anti-Whites genocidal program by mass third-world immigration and forced assimilation in Every White country and Only White countries.
    “Misinformation” is any pro-White truth that would expose the lies that the anti-Whites in power use to demoralize Whites and masquerade White Genocide as “diversity.”

    1. What are the odds that this is one of SQGRLY’s multiple personalities? It doesn’t read like anything other than a snowflake who thinks that this is what white supremacists sound like.

      1. Smart white supremacists don’t say it out loud. They say things like “protect your suburbs” and “thugs are looting cities to death.”

        1. If non-white-supremacists also say “protect your suburbs” and “thugs are looting cities to death,” does that make the non-white-supremacists, white supremacists? And if so, why/how?

          1. At best it makes them retards who don’t understand what they’re being dog-whistled to about, but it hardly takes conscious deliberation to be made afraid of phantom violent black people. The right has been doing it to you for centuries.

            1. Nah you got it backwards. I conduct correct analysis, and I have no control over whether some white supremacist retards co-opt it for their own ends.

              1. A correct analysis of domestic terrorism would recognize that almost all of it is committed by white supremacists and not poor black people.

              2. I have no control over whether some white supremacist retards co-opt it for their own ends.

                OK, buddy, OK. Read you loud and clear. 🙂

            2. Are those “phantom violent black people” the ones that commit violent crime, far in disproportion to their representation in society?

        2. They say things like “protect your suburbs” and “thugs are looting cities to death.”

          Exactly. Tony knows how to be racist without the appearance of racist. It’s like handing out bricks at a protest. Get the thugs to get themselves arrested.

  20. ”There’s no way Twitter and Facebook can appease them both”
    Of course there isn’t. How are they supposed to know who to bribe when the election is this close?

  21. For the past four years the reason writers treated every criticism by Trump of the media as a terrible attack on the independence of the press and the1st Amendment itself. Now, the majority party in the House of Representatives wants the social media platforms to suppress information that is unfavorable to them under barely veiled threats, even from established news organizations and the reaction is “not optimal”, but not an apocalyptic threat to press freedom either, and the GOP demanding that the platforms be more open forums is just as bad..

    1. “Reason” is about reason the way Antifa is about fighting fascism.

      1. Then go find your own TRUELIBERTARIAN site and leave the rest of us alone.

        Sheesh I’m tired of hearing from people who think that this place isn’t libertarian enough. Okay fine. So go find the place that suits your needs instead of bitching about this one that you clearly don’t like.

        1. The Non-Absolute is grumpy today.

          1. Grumpy-pants is grumpy because Grumpy-pants can NOT get it the way that Grumpy-pants wants it, all day every day! Grumpy-pants thinks it is because the Angel Moronic betrayed Grumpy-pants! But it is REALLY because the batteries wore out in Grumpy-pants’s MAGA-magic underwear, and Grumpy-pants forgot to change the batteries!!!

  22. Free speech is not “from the government”. It is an innate right recognized by the constitution. If you do not have constitutional rights while using the private sector, you do not have constitutional rights.
    Period.
    And the proof is excruciatingly simple:
    If a private business can deny equal access based on political views, then conservatives (in this case) could be refused loans, gasoline, housing, food, clothing, etc.
    They could literally be squeezed out of existence while libertarians congratulate themselves about establishing a true free market with no government interference.
    The same destructive power could be wielded against Liberals, blacks, whites, Asians, Jews, Catholics, Libertarians, Homosexuals, or literally any identifiable group.
    —-
    Economic freedom flows from personal freedom. Not visa-versa. So economic freedom does not trump our other freedoms, especially those delineated in the Bill of Rights.
    —-
    If these social media companies want to reorganize themselves as political or religious organizations, then it is a different discussion, but for now that is not the case.
    So for now, I’ll put Facebook, Twitter, and Google in the same category as restaurants that refused to serve blacks in the 50s

    1. You don’t have a right not to be discriminated against because of the things you say. But it’s hilarious that you think so.

      1. What if the thing you say is “I identify as black and therefore am protected by the Civil Rights Act”?

        1. What’s the context?

      2. Tony,
        Kudos for a snarky comment, but you addressed zero of my assertions.

        1. Political affiliation is not a protected class in the Civil Rights Act.

          The hilarious part is, and do correct any wrong assumptions, when members of the political faction that practically exists to oppose the Civil Rights Act suddenly find out why people like it when their own ass is on the line.

          I would suggest that being a Republican or libertarian unfortunately presents no risk for being denied participation in the commerce of your community. Invitations to cool parties? Perhaps.

          1. Tony,
            I’m taking your argument to the extreme of it’s logical conclusion, which is often the best way to expose the weakness in a theory or an idea.
            You position literally allows individuals to be discriminated out of existence or out of participation in society.
            Therefore it cannot be correct or compatible with free society.
            And BTW, this kind of extreme idealism is why Libertarians fail to gain traction as a party.
            At the end of the day, government has to work for real people.
            You can’t tell a man that has been denied food because of his skin color to grow his own food, and you can’t tell a man whose free speech has been infringed to start his own social media company.
            Well, you can, and then they will vote for candidates that will actually make government work.
            If you want to solve real problems that libertarianism is capable of solving, like ending the never-ending “war on drugs”, then you are going to have to let go of this nonsense

            1. The Civil Rights Act exists for a specific reason: people were systematically being denied the freedom to participate in the economy of their own communities. It’s a corrective in service of capitalism based on facts on the ground. If there were no Jim Crow regime, or if women weren’t excluded from business, etc., there would have been no need for it.

              There is no similar lack of opportunities for people to express their political beliefs, and any similar protections against discrimination based on political belief would be contrary to the very idea of free expression: that the point is for good ideas to emerge. Propping up bad ideas as if they were immutable traits of people doesn’t do this at all.

              It would be unthinkable to ask a black person to change their race; getting people to change their mind about ideas is the purpose of free speech.

  23. Have you ever seen a more punchable face than Jack Dorsey?

      1. +1000

  24. “Once again, Republican lawmakers called for fewer limits on content—or at least, certain kinds of it—while Democrats called for more curation. There’s no way Facebook and Twitter can appease both sides…which is why we get this muddled, ever-changing, make-no-one-happy response to social media content moderation.”

    Let’s not miss the big points on the game board here.

    1) The Republicans’ gripe is fundamentally superior to the Democrat stance from a libertarian free speech perspective.

    2) The status quo is fundamentally beneficial to Democrats and social justice warriors going forward.

    3) There is no good reason why both sides should be happy.

    1. Note to foreign readers: By “both sides” is meant “Republican National Socialism” and “Democratic Communism.”

      1. Actually, in this context, it doesn’t meant that at all.

        ENB said that, “Republican lawmakers called for fewer limits on content—or at least, certain kinds of it—while Democrats called for more curation.”

        One side is pushing to put fewer limits on content.

        The other side is for actively curating [censoring] content.

        One side is clearly better than the other from a libertarian perspective.

  25. Once again, Republican lawmakers called for fewer limits on content—or at least, certain kinds of it—while Democrats called for more curation. There’s no way Facebook and Twitter can appease both sides

    I wonder: which of those two positions might be the libertarian one?

    1. I think the way the staff tries to rationalize that goes something like– because neither side is 100% libertarian, there’s no difference between them.

      The fact is that one less than perfectly libertarian side is actually fundamentally superior to the other.

      1. If we were stuck with a choice of one or the other, it’s clear which is superior. However, we don’t have to be saddled with either one.

        1. However, we don’t have to be saddled with either one.

          Yes, because a fully libertarian society is just one election away!

          Can you really be that naive?

        2. Our best hope is to influence one of the two parties to try to entice us to vote for them.

          1. . . . and thereby infiltrate one of the two parties.

            One of the parties is less than perfect when it comes to capitalism and free speech

            The other party is fundamentally hostile to capitalism and free speech.

  26. OK, so here we go again with this social networking bullshit. Why it’s such a big deal is beyond me. If you can’t post your bullshit on one site, do it on another site that welcomes your bullshit.

    If all of my social media profiles got deleted today and I was permanently banned, I wouldn’t give a shit. I’m a network engineer and I really don’t see much value in social networking anyway. The only thing it does is put us all in our own little boxes and confine out thought process. If you like that kind of thing, then yell at the top of your lungs and cry for freedoms. Most likely they will fall upon deaf ears if the social networking site you want to use does not allow what they consider to be crazy speech.

    Unfortunately, this has all been brought to the forefront because we have a president who can’t keep his trap shut. Or in this case, can’t shove his fingers up his ass where they belong. He types and types spreading lies and unproveable conspiracy theories. He probably doesn’t even type them. He probably just dictates them to someone who knows how to type. Then he gets flagged and all of his followers seem to throw some kind of shit fit. If he was smart, he would keep his trap shut, find some real evidence, then speak of his findings. Instead, he makes shit up, files lawsuits, then tells his people to go and find some evidence. Although I did not vote for either Trump or Biden, I do find it all slightly entertaining to watch. But as far as I know, Trump has lost 19 of his 20 cases against the election and the one that remains, can’t seem to get a single law firm to look at his suit and decide that it’s a case they want to take on, so they quit. That should say something, shouldn’t it?

    And lastly, don’t forget. You always have the option of making your own twitter. There you can have full control of what you say. You can even ban users with far left opinions. And the big bonus is that you too can become one of the richest men or women in the world. How cool would that be. So come on people, get those fingers on the keyboard and start coding ASAP. I’ll even join your site if you make one. Don’t forget, most of the sites that are up now were created by people that started with nothing but an idea. You can do it too if you are smart enough. Code, code, code away boys and girls.

    1. ” If you can’t post your bullshit on one site, do it on another site that welcomes your bullshit.”

      This is of course true, and that’s why I cringe whenever someone on the right says that twitter and facebook are monopolies. But still I think the solution you propose is the wrong one. The correct solution is for Twitter, Facebook, Google and others to stop their censorship. Your proposal would aggravate the echo chamber problem and create more online ideological ghettos.

      Censoring because of political bias is wrong. It’s legal and protected by the 1st, but it’s wrong. Censoring because of alleged “misinformation” is also wrong. We’ve seen over and over again that “misinformation” is simply that which disagrees with left orthodoxy.

      1. I’d like to reiterate or interject my post from yesterday here:

        “Top charts” on the Google Play store:

        1. Parler
        2. Newsmax
        4. MeWe
        6. TikTok
        10. Instagram
        13. Discord
        15. Snapchat
        37. Twitter
        44. Facebook

        Parler and MeWe are alternatives to Twitter and Facebook, and as of right now, Parler and MeWe are gaining ground on Twitter and Facebook–presumably because of the shitty way Twitter and Facebook treated Trump voters and the news over the course of the election cycle. TikTok, Discord, and Snapchat are effectively rivals of the big social media companies, too.

        No doubt, Parler and MeWe have a long way to go before they achieve the scale of Twitter and Facebook, but if the number of downloads is the ultimate measure of success, Parler and MeWe are gaining ground on Twitter and Facebook every day. We should not assume that last year’s market share will be the same forever.

        The only people who really have a right to complain about censorship are the people who left Facebook and Twitter and went to another service to escape it. Once the government steps in, the content rules will eventually be the same for everyone–and why is that a good idea in an industry where what we want is for different social media companies to differentiate themselves from each other on policy to appeal to different consumers?

        1. All these “free speech” platforms end up hosting a bunch of white supremacists and child porn and shut down in disgrace, don’t they?

          1. Is it hard to believe that people are flocking to Parler and MeWe by the hundreds of thousands a day–despite what Tony thinks is and isn’t cool?

            I don’t think so.

            1. I haven’t decided if it’s a good thing for the Trump cult to all confine themselves to a self-contained fact-free bubble of the internet. On the one hand, as I said below, I know of no upper bound to being victimized by a cult if it’s left to go unchecked. On the other hand, maybe they’ll all convince each other that drinking bleach cures that strange flu they can’t get rid of. Maybe the bleach challenge will go viral.

              And won’t anyone think of FOX News? I’m actually curious. They are abandoning FOX News not because it became any less right-wing, but simply because it reported the news about the outcome of the election. Do you find this to be healthy behavior on the part of your partisan compatriots?

              1. It doesn’t matter what you’ve decided.

                Consumers are flocking to Parler and MeWe anyway.

                1. But do you think it’s healthy for your ideological brethren to abandon even a very sympathetic news source because it reported a fact they didn’t want to hear?

                  1. It doesn’t matter whether I think it’s healthy.

                    That’s what they’re doing anyway.

                    1. Then may they be reduced to a joke rather than get their paws on the levers of power ever again.

                    2. We’re schooling a lot of people on facts today . . .

                      Facts are things that don’t change depending on whether we like them, and the fact is that people are doing this whether we like it or not.

            2. despite what Tony thinks is and isn’t cool?

              Tony really, really wants everything but Twitter to fail. Tony’s whole shtick is ‘quit whining and take the Marxism like a man’.

        2. So you see, there are places for those on the far right, so everyone can be happy. Although I still am not a big fan of social networking. To me social networking is just a big social experiment to see how they can fragment society.

          My real social networking online is a few forums. But it’s not really like social networking. Forums are places where like minded people come together to support each other, unlike places like Twitter and Facebook who deliberately create algorithms to divide and conquer and make money off of each and every user.

          1. If you designed a social media platform for the express purpose of generating social justice mobs and to effectuate cancel culture, it would look exactly like Twitter. So long as they don’t violate anybody’s rights, they should be perfectly free to be a blight on society–like some Tom Cruise cult–but they’re still a blight on society.

            1. Yeah, well, in this case it looks like Twitter is dumping on Trump. Think of it as draining the swamp

          2. Almost half the USA is “far right” according to the left’s definition.

        3. So you inspired me to look into those services. Wikipedia, as always, is the source of the google blurb that comes up first.

          Both prominently feature dismissive descriptions about being popular with conspiracy theorists and racists, anti-semites, alt-right and Trump supporters. Yes, they specifically segregate out a mention for Trump supporters among the deplorables.

          Funny how that works…. you ban specific groups from Twitter and Facebook, and the alternative to Twitter and Facebook has a bunch of people from those groups.

    2. Why it’s such a big deal is beyond me. If you can’t post your bullshit on one site, do it on another site that welcomes your bullshit.

      It’s a big deal because Facebook, Twitter, and Google are near-monopolies courtesy of the US government.

      As soon as we have an actual free market and competition in this area, your argument works.

      1. Just use myspace.com

  27. Social media is less a forum for free speech and more a dopamine delivery system. Regulating it like we do cigarettes would be the dispassionately smart thing to do, but powerful interests who benefit from sophisticated propaganda techniques would never go for it.

    I would think it’s obviously the libertarian position that corporations get to decide what content they want to host, regardless of liability implications.

    My worry is that I know of no maximum limit to the number of people who can be duped by well-funded propaganda. Everybody used to smoke and they didn’t even need the internet.

    1. interesting, would James Dean have a twitter account?

    2. Tony could look in a mirror, pitchfork in hand, and recite “People, not Profits,” “The Common Good Before the Individual Good,” “For the many, not the few,” and “You can take Salem out of the country but, you can’t take the country out of Salem.”

      1. Individual freedom is one of my first principles; I simply believe there is more to individual freedom than low taxes for rich people.

        1. Individual freedom is one of my first principles

          LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

          HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

          PULL THE OTHER ONE, IT’S GOT BELLS!!!!!!

        2. Individual freedom is one of my first principles;

          Just like it was for Marx and Stalin! They just have to kill half the human population to get there! You’re made of the same stuff, Tony!

          1. Where the fuck did you go to school, a sewer?

  28. These continuous attacks on and interrogations of private companies and citizens by those on both sides of the aisle on the Hill and by both Obama and Trump are obscene and flip the basic original and intended relationship of government to American citizens upside down.

    “Americans were born exceptionally free from a feudal past, and hence free from an established church and an entrenched aristocracy. This made them exceptionally receptive to intellectual pluralism and exceptionally able to achieve social mobility. America had an exceptional revolution, one that did not attempt to define and deliver happiness, but one that set people free to define and pursue it as they please. Americans codified their Founding doctrines as a natural rights republic in an exceptional Constitution, one that does not say what government must do for them but what government may not do to them. And because the Founding experience was the result of, and affirmed the potency of, human agency, Americans are exceptionally impervious to bleak modern anxieties about human destinies being shaped by vast impersonal forces. America’s central government is exceptionally constructed to limit the discretion of those in power by balancing rival centers of power.” ~ George Will

    1. George Will’s former political constituency: “Leftists are in a globalist conspiracy to eat our babies!”

      1. George Will? Good lord, son. There’s stupid trolling… and then there’s whatever new level of idiocy you just reached with that one.

    2. George Will is a blithering idiot. He gives a bad name even to good arguments and good objectives. Do something for liberty and libertarianism and stop quoting him.

  29. Never has Ayn’s “Conservatism, an Obituary” been more relevant than with these Republican National Socialist efforts to bring back Comstock law superstition and turn These States into Ceausescu’s Romania. Visit aynrandlexicon.com and type in “censorship.” There unfolds the litany of “sex, religion or criticism of government officials” as retasked by Cruz, Leslie and the red-faced Unit of Coercive Mormonism into “censorship” for NOT licking the blacking off of National Socialist Positive Christianity’s boots. Rotsa ruck.

    1. The term “consensual reality” sure sounds like something out of a Rand or Orwell dystopia.

      “The underlying tone of this hearing is existential angst over the emerging divide about how consensual reality is negotiated. “

  30. They are concluding to censor what they don’t like or their woke cosmo Ivy league buddies/family members don’t like. These firms have decided they are sovereign countries and are in violation of the bill of rights..and perhaps the civil rights act of 64 where sellers cannot discriminate. Time to break them up and send the globalists like Zuck and Dorsey to some nice little former communist country in central or eastern europe where they seem to be at home.

  31. Remember how way back in the olden days we used to have a HnR guide that explained who the relevant parties are? Do we have one of those?

    It seems like the trolls are switching personalities around at a record clip. Do we have a list of who is who, and how many puppeteers run each puppet? All of the trolls, puppets and troll police running around arguing with the trolls really gums up the works. It would be nice to know which ones are crazy, which are professional trolls from paid political organizations, and which are actually true believers who might be worth having a discussion with about issues that are in conflict. But there is so much crazy and fake running around, I can’t spot any real voices worthy of engagement.

  32. One more on the specifics of Twitter, facebook et. al policing content for political reasons.

    The discussion about “what should they do” usually turns to policing up racist trolls and such. For those who missed the inception of the internet, every newsgroup and internet forum used to begin with a post by some troll replete with racist insults and homophobic slurs – and probably something about Jews. That was the content people wanted to police up.

    That problem was solved in the 90’s by Slashdot. They introduced a meta-moderation system to enable users to moderate such content.

    But facebook, twitter, youtube and instagram have no such issues. Never have, and never would. By design.

    Facebook is a self-curated world. There are no random unknown 3rd party trolls gumming up your feed with racist rants and grotesque sexual depictions. You can block anyone you want, and only allow content from those you want. It operates on a similar principle to Slashdot, only with each individual curating their own private board, and a hidden algorithm excluding things similar to things you exclude yourself. It is built right in to the very foundation of the platform. There are no racist frist post issues on Twitter or Facebook.

    What they are doing today is moderating not for racist trolls, but for political speech they disagree with. Well, not speech they disagree with, but speech that the screeching crowd they are listening to disagrees with.

    This is very different. This is not about people wanting to control what *they* are confronted with. It is about wanting to control what *other people* can see and read. They don’t worry that some Trump supporter’s meme will make it into their twitter feed. They worry that *you* will see that meme.

    This is exactly the crux of the problem, and exactly why every libertarian should be passionately opposed to these efforts.

  33. There is a way Twitter and Facebook can appease them both.
    By only removing material that is universally objectionable, like child porn or efforts to recruit and radicalize jihadists, which was how the whole “moderation” fad began.
    Give a lefty an inch…

  34. Yet congress does not berate reason magazine for its equally biased political opinion. Publishers can and should have opinions platforms are for others opinions or usage.

    Clearly congress which writes the laws allowing platforms to keep from being sued where reason can be, has an interest in looking at the laws that created and allow the monopolies to continue.

Please to post comments