Free Speech

Suppressing 'Hate Speech' on Social Media Drives Users to New Platforms

The more that big social media companies act like they can control what people say, the more competition they encourage.

|

With German-style Internet controls catching on around the world and social media platforms increasingly targeting "fake news" and allegedly (or explicitly) hateful views, researchers have wondered just how those on the receiving end are responding to newly trendy censorship. What they've found should surprise nobody: that people find ways to express themselves. Whatever the quality of disfavored speech, it's continuing to be expressed through back channels and on new platforms that proliferate to meet demand.

Interestingly, not only are we seeing that the big social media companies are anything but monopolies, but the more they act like they can control what people say, the more competition they encourage.

"Moderation of hateful or radical content on social media has been a central point of discussion in the recent years," Ofra Klein of the European University Institute's Department of Political and Social Sciences wrote earlier this month in a piece citing research on the effects of censoring Internet speech. "Yet, much remains unknown about the decisions of platforms on how content is moderated and what the consequences are for mobilization on the radical right."

Indeed, such "moderation" became a headline-grabbing topic in 2020. Under pressure from a growing number of governments as well as from corporate advertisers, social media companies have restricted "hate speech" as well as "fake news" and other varieties of forbidden expression that can vary in detail from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

Inevitably, while social media companies have the right to apply any or no restrictions to their own services, descriptors like "fake" and "hateful" are open to debate. Klein observes that child pornography and terrorist beheadings are easy to identify, but "when it comes to the moderation practices of removing hateful tweets or radical right pages, it is often more opaque why certain content is removed." That can be especially galling to many when moderation seems directed at speech that large numbers of people consider acceptable.

That leaves lots of folks looking for alternative communications channels. And they're finding them.

"Censorship leads to various responses on the radical right," notes Klein. "Migration to other platforms, such as Parler, is a common strategy."

Parler, in particular, has gained a following among conservatives as they've felt increasingly unwelcome on sites like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. Fox Business's Maria Bartiromo was just one of the high-profile figures to open a Parler account after Twitter ticked her off by flagging as "disputed" several tweets about supposed election shenanigans (she continues running both accounts).

Other services have picked up refugees from mainstream social media in the past. Gab, in particular, gained a following after the big companies cracked down on racists, neo-Nazis, and the alt right.

But Maria Bartiromo isn't a neo-Nazi; she's not even on the "radical right" to which Klein continuously refers. She's a Trump-supporting anchor for a major news network. As the researcher points out, the evidence "suggests that over time, moderation has indeed become harsher." And it's apparently pushing further into the mainstream of political discourse, driving a larger wave of refugees to social media alternatives.

"Parler is surging," NBC News reported after the presidential election. "It sits atop the charts of app stores, boosted in large part by supporters who agree with Trump's decision to continue fighting the results of the election—in the courts and on the internet."

As I write, the platform remains in ninth place among free social media apps in Google's store (Facebook is fourth and Twitter is sixth).

MeWe, an alternative to Facebook, has also seen rapid growth since the election—at one point even faster than Parler, according to Fortune.

As Bartiromo's joint Twitter and Parler presence suggests, those flocking to new platforms don't necessarily abandon the old ones. Often, they maintain a more circumspect presence on Facebook and Twitter in order to maximize their reach.

"Actors do not just shift their activities, but they also change their strategies. Remaining quiet is an example, just as using coded-language to make hateful speech more hidden and less obvious."

That leaves social media moderators playing whack-a-mole with people who may be saying innocuous things, hiding forbidden speech behind euphemisms, or just screwing with them. If you've ever wondered why some people now get upset over the "OK" hand sign, it's because it might be an expression of support for white supremacy, a way of trolling censors, or just a quick, easy, and traditional way to indicate agreement.

If it sounds like censorship is once again proving itself to be a losing proposition that threatens the free exchange of ideas without making the world a better place, you're certainly right. Instead of the impossible-to-achieve identification and suppression of awful thoughts, what we're seeing is moderators targeting ever-more mainstream speakers in their search for forbidden speech. In the process, they're also driving conspiracy theorists and flat-out loons to take refuge in ideological hot houses where their ravings go relatively unchallenged.

"Removing radical actors from mainstream platforms can, on the one hand, significantly reduce their audiences, but it can also contribute to increased feelings of resentment and victimhood, forming a breeding ground for even stronger discontent," warns Klein.

Importantly, and unmentioned by Klein, the spread of such muzzling beyond "radical" targets is not always an unintended consequence. Authoritarian regimes have eagerly adopted "hate speech" restrictions as weapons against political dissidents. "In a review of more than 40 recent hate-law arrests, Reuters found that in each case, authorities intervened against Venezuelans who had criticized Maduro, other ruling party officials or their allies," the news service reported last week.

If tolerating a range of ideas—good, bad, nutty, and indifferent—on diverse new platforms is the price we must pay to deny authoritarians easy means for suppressing their critics, then so be it. People always find ways to speak their minds in defiance of those who would control the conversation, and that's a good thing.

NEXT: When Your Outfit Is Made Illegal

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. Yeah it`s Possible…Anybody can earn 250$+ daily… You can earn from 6000-12000 a month or even more if you work as a full time job…It’s easy, just follow instructions on this page, read it carefully from start to finish… It’s a flexible job but a good
    eaning opportunity.. Here is More information.

    1. Your daily reminder that sarcasmic fucked up and outed himself as SQRLSY

      “SQRLSY One
      November.10.2020 at 2:04 am
      Wow, what literary talent and rapier wit! Let’s see if I can match or exceed it, with some OTHER brilliantly smart comments that I have created just now!

      Fuck off, spaz!
      You eat shit, you said so yourself!
      You’re a racist Hitler-lover!
      Take your meds!
      That’s so retarded!
      You’re a Marxist!
      Your feet stink and you don’t love Trump!
      Your source is leftist, so it must be false!
      Trump rules and leftists drool!
      You are SOOO icky-poo!
      But Goo-Goo-Gah-Gah!

      Wow, I am now 11 times as smart and original as you are”

      https://reason.com/video/2020/11/09/joe-bidens-11-trillion-plan-to-bankrupt-america/#comment-8575184

      1. “sarcasmic​‍‌
        November.16.2020 at 10:10 am
        Wow, what literary talent and rapier wit! Let’s see if I can match or exceed it, with some OTHER brilliantly smart comments that I have created just now!

        Fuck off, spaz!
        You eat shit, you said so yourself!
        You’re a racist Hitler-lover!
        Take your meds!
        That’s so retarded!
        You’re a Marxist!
        Your feet stink and you don’t love Trump!
        Your source is leftist, so it must be false!
        Trump rules and leftists drool!
        You are SOOO icky-poo!
        But Goo-Goo-Gah-Gah!

        Wow, I am now 11 times as smart and original as you are!”

        https://reason.com/2020/11/16/i-won-the-election-tweets-trump-as-legal-losses-stack-up/#comment-8587318

        1. Lulz. What an alcoholic.

          1. [ PART TIME JOB FOR USA ] Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
            on this page…..work92/7 online<b

        2. Yes Tulpa, we all know that Sarcasmic resides in the double-wide of your brain rent-free. Fuck off and get a life, loser.

          1. I have received $17634 last month from home by working online in my part time. I am a full time student and doing this easy home based work for 3 to 4 hours a day. This job is very simple to do and its regular earnings are much better than any other office type work.
            See detail here………… USA ONLINE JOBS

        3. Nobody cares, faggot.

          1. JOIN PART TIME JOBS

            Google pays for every Person every hour online working from home job. I have received $23K in this month easily and I earns every weeks $5K to 8$K on the internet. Anm Every Person join this working easily by just just open this website and follow instructions

            COPY This Website OPEN HERE….. Visit Here

      2. Google pays for every Person every hour online working from home job. I have GDE received $23K in this month easily and I earns every weeks $5K to 8$K on the internet. Every Person join this working easily by just just open this website and follow instructions….. Visit Here

    2. Google pays for every Person every hour online working from home job. I have nvq received $23K in this month easily and I earns every weeks $5K to 8$K on the internet. Every Person join this working easily by just just open this website and follow instructions….. Visit Here

    3. Google pays for every Person every hour online working from home job. I have BKI received $23K in this month easily and I earns every weeks $5K to 8$K on the internet. Every Person join this working easily by just just open this website and follow instructions….. Visit Here

    4. Start an easy on-line home based job and makes more than $15,000 per month. Simple and easy work to do and regular earning from this are just pretty awesome. I got $15740 last month directly deposit in my bank. This is what i follow.

      ………. for more info visit any tab this site Thanks a lot .

      Here………… …………..Work At Home

    5. [ PART TIME JOB FOR USA ] Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple works from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job GTRto do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
      on this page…. Visit Here

  2. We will come to depend on SleepyJoe for guidance in this area.
    He will tell us what is ok to talk about.

    1. SleepyJoe don’t know, but the Red’s in town!

      New Riders of the Purple Sage

      Panama red, panama red
      He’ll steal your woman, then he’ll rob your head
      Panama red, panama red
      On his white horse, mescalito
      He come breezin’ through town
      I’ll bet your woman’s up in bed with
      Panama red
      The judge don’t know when red’s in town
      He keeps well hidden underground
      But everybody’s acting lazy
      Falling out and hangin’ ’round…

      …etc.

      Also, from the article above…

      “…hiding forbidden speech behind euphemisms…”

      I would like you to know that the purple gerbil has landed in the yellow tree! I say again, the purple gerbil has landed in the yellow tree!

      1. Did you forget you outed yourself sarcasmic?

        1. I am sickpuppet!
          I am Squirlee-whirlee!
          I am sukkassmo!
          I am ÁRBOLES!
          I am the chief comment officer!
          Clik on >++link for free Land R0vers & P0rn-a$$ Plug-iN hybrid..

          1. SQRLSY did you forget you outed yourself?

            1. Comment Police Anonymous hazmereír INternet Poster without an avatar. Got it!

              1. sarcasmic did you forget you outed yourself?

                1. I already confessed. Stop the waterboarding.

                  1. SQRLSY did you forget you told us you eat shit before you outed yourself?

                    1. Sickpuppet is obviously Skwirrlllee whirlee and maybe tonee too.

                    2. sarcasmic did you forget you told us you eat shit before you outed yourself?

                    3. Árboles de la Barranca
                      December.26.2020 at 11:59 am
                      Sickpuppet is obviously

                      ahahah SQLRSY is getting pissed!!!

                    4. “Árboles de la Barranca”

                      SQRLSY/sarcasmic burns another of his sockpuppets

                    5. Seriously I don’t know why more people haven’t tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening…ERt And i get surly a chek of $12600 whats awesome is Im working from home so I get more time with my kids.

                      Here’s sign up for details….. Home Profit System

                  2. sarcasmic did you forget you told us you eat shit before you outed yourself?

                    1. I am made $84, 8254 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. I am using an online business. Here what I do,. for more information……… USA ONLINE JOBS

              2. lolol you’re so bad at this SQRLSY

      2. Now do Important Exportin’ Man.

        1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDVg8d9D5Bw

          I had to look it up! NOW I am edumacated!

          Well he’s done a lot of travelin’ tryin’ to bring the best to you
          You can see him in new delhI or even maybe katmandu
          He got a nose for the business it won’t go wrong
          He’s very glad to meet you he can’t stay long
          O.K. sam important exportin’ man
          He smiles his way across the border just heard from him in mexico
          I’m gonna rush him down my order he knows just where to go
          He runs a mail order service just for you
          If he can’t send it he’ll bring it through
          O.K. sam important exportin’ man
          He’s getting up this morning and pullin’ on his persian gloves
          He’ll be a sniffin’ round the market to buy the things you love
          He got a nose for the business it won’t go wrong
          He’s very glad to meet you he can’t stay long
          O.K. sam important exportin’ man
          He’s O.K. sam important exportin’ man

          1. sarcasmic did you forget you outed yourself?

          2. Why haven’t you killed your self Squirrely?

      3. NRPS!

    2. I love your faith in Dementia Joe.
      I hate Google. The algorithm used to allow the users to determine what popped up in searches based on search words and demand. Now, 30 year old Chinese dudes make sure that anything that goes against the New World Order is on page 16 of your Google search, if you can find it at all.

      1. Then use DuckDuckGo or Bing or any one of several other available search engines.

        1. Fuck off sarcasmic

          1. Earning more dollars from home easily just by working 0nline j0b from home. Makes every month extra $20k or more from this easy h0me j0b. Last month i have made $22759 from this just in my spare time. Every person can now get this and start earning 0nline from the instructions given to this web page…

            Home Profit System

        2. You’re right. It was at the top of Duck Fuck Go. One sight has 135 views and the other 230. Less than 500 views for a Presidential speech because the search engine with the monopoly has buried it. Welcome to China, my friends. Where the MSM controls what we see, hear, and read. Of note, Vanity Fair had an article about Trump that pulled up third on my Duck Duck Go search: It had the word “feces” in the headline. We live in a great era!

          1. It is not my fault that Reason changes the word “DUCK” to fuck matter what I do.

          2. People always find ways to speak their minds in defiance of those who would control the conversation

            Apparently 2chili never heard of China.

  3. Looking at both Facebook and Twitter, it is apparent that actual Communist comment is fine, so long as the people depicted as worthy of death are white and male. Hate is obvious, but directed at those the moderators also hate, so is fine.
    Any deviation is defined as alt-right. That speech is sometimes racist and hateful, but usually just doubtful of the Progressive agenda and almost never anything like Nazi speech. Stuff my grandmother would believe in is forbidden and so is much of what anyone not a teacher of a gender studies course would approve.

    1. This is exactly right.

      I’ve seen very little of what I’d consider truly cringe-worthy speech censored, and a whole shit-ton of stuff that simply goes against progressive orthodoxy wiped off as if Hitler said the words himself.

      We live in a time where simply voting for Mainstream Candidate R is considered WHITE SUPREMACY!!. Where completely harmless words are considered violence. I’ve seen but a few rare instances of true Nazi speech (indeed we’ve all seen false flag attempts 100x more than truly racist speech/action), and a whole lot of regular, everyday speech being branded as WHITE SUPREMACY!! And of course we’ve all seen situations of speech that is truly cringe worthy breeze right through moderators and “fact” checkers because it meets with progressive approval. You know, the “All white people need to die” sort. That stuff floats around Twitter all the time.

      1. “Merry Christmas” is apparently white supremacy…

        1. Nobody is offended by “Merry Christmas!” except in Bill O’Reilly’s imagination.

            1. One person you found on Twitter.

              1. Nobody is offended

          1. According to the piece in the WSJ yesterday, until recently “merry” was a common and strict synonym for drunk. Thus Merry Christmas was a drunken pub crawl by violent bros that spilled over into private homes.

            Make Christmas Merry Again!

          2. Bulllshit. The left would love to get rid of Christmas.

          3. Anyone remember when WK he only criticized the right and appeared to support the left because the President was a Republican and as soon as a Democrat won the election he would start criticizing the left? We are waiting WK, or are you willing to admit you are a leftist who claims to be libertarian?

            1. SuckerLoser76 you’re back! What are you gonna lie about today you Mormon loving shitbag? What LDS horseshit Propoganda are you peddling now? George Washington was Mormon? Mormons were victims of the french revolution?

              You’re a Mormon loving piece of shit like your mormon cunt mother

              1. What is it with you and Mormons? Did they take your lunch money and beat you up?

                1. They are trying to force their pedo con artist worshipping bullshit on everyone.

                  Libertarians should hate Mormons. Mormons are social conservative fascists.

                  Why are you Mormon? If you’re do the world a favor and shoot up your temple!

                  1. The man has a valid point. Mormons are the dirtiest pieces of dogshit humanity has to offer. But we already knew this.

                    Also, why is sqrlsy socking as sarcasmic? Why does this matter so much? Is sqrlsy Mormon?

  4. According to Reason contributor Noah Berlatsky, the government should regulate hate speech. Then those hateful bigots who oppose the Koch / Reason open borders agenda would have nowhere to express their racist views.

    #LibertariansAgainstHateSpeech
    #BringBackBerlatsky

    1. #LibertariansForStrictSpeechControlLaws

        1. #LibertariansForThePoliceState

          1. #LiberalAtheistsAgainstChristianFascismAndTheImplicitRacismAndHomophobiaOfTheLibertarianDiasporaAtLarge

            1. Fuck off White Knight.

              1. Replying to the wrong post I’m guessing?
                I really don’t understand why you feel the need to swear in every one of your posts on this thread. You might think that salty language makes you look tough in front of all your ‘home-boys’ but I can assure you it only makes you look weak and mentally-deficient to the able-minded and strong.

                1. Fuck off White Knight.

                  1. Okay enough of this, what is your problem?

                    1. Fuck off White Knight.

                    2. STOP. I’m starting to get very angry. Why do you continue to curse and say this to me? You can clearly see that you’re not replying to The White Knight so I know for certain this is no longer an accident. Leave me alone NOW before I get really angry.

                    3. Did you forget you outed yourself sarcasmic?

                    4. Before you get angry? Go for it. Do you say something interesting for a change? Or just the same banal bullshit?

                  2. WHAT IS YOUR F**KING PROBLEM. STOP HARRASSING ME I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT. I’M F**KING PO’D AS HELL AND I DON’T NEED THIS IN MY LIFE. STOP. NOW.

                    1. Did you forget you outed yourself sarcasmic?

                    2. Please. Stop. I’m begging you. I’ve asked you nicely over 10 times… Please. Just stop… I can’t do this anymore.

                    3. Fuck off sarcasmic

                    4. Then go away? Why do you keep engaging with things that screw up your peace of mind?
                      Nobody but you cares if you’re upset. This is the internet – nobody needs to be nice to you just because that’s what you want.

                      The only power you have is to walk away.

                    5. And the award for the weirdest comment thread goes too…

                    6. More proof mormons can’t be trusted and must be exterminated is losersucker76! He claimed Mormons were persecuted for their religion during the holocaust. I assume he realized his cunt Mormon mother lied(like all Mormons) and realized his error with a quick Google search. He then started just making shit up and saying I supported the holocaust. I never said that and made sure I was clear that I didn’t support the holocaust, but like his cunt lying Mormon mother he just kept lying.

                      Are you sure you aren’t Mormon like your cunt Mormon mother? You sure lie like your cunt Mormon mother.

                      Btw I hope your cunt Mormon mother strangles herself putting on her magic underwear.

                      Did I mention your mom’s a cunt?

                      Your daughter is a cunt too!

                    7. Maybe you should stop coming here. Problem solved

  5. “Parler, in particular, has gained a following among conservatives as they’ve felt increasingly unwelcome actively been censored and de-monetized on sites like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube.”

  6. Yeah we’ll see how long any site that doesn’t toe the line sticks around. Deplatforming can happen in other ways like hosting services removing websites. Those not sufficiently woke left may exist but only as an IP address.

    Do t underestimate your enemy.

    1. And as usual iOS replaces don’t with do t

      Doh

      1. I have plenty of issues with iOS autocorrect, but I’ve never seen that. I just type “dont” and let it add the apostrophe.

        1. Did you forget you outed yourself SQRLSY?

          1. Or did SQRLSY out himself as sarcasmic, or perhaps they think so much alike they made identical posts, or maybe sarcasmic plagarized SQRLSY.

            Which is easier: for a curmudgeon to act insane, or an insane to act like nurse Ratchet?

          2. Idk man maybe sarcasmic just copied one of the dumbest things he could find that was said on here. I mean, ya he’s stupid, but is he sqrlsy stupid?

  7. Whatever the quality of disfavored speech, it’s continuing to be expressed through back channels and on new platforms that proliferate to meet demand.

    But those back channels and new platforms continue to depend on the Internet, if you catch my drift.

    1. Catching your drift and adding that their technical presence and financial solvency continue to depend on credit card companies, banks and other payment processors all of which are increasingly hostile to unwoke ideas.

      Yeah, I know, start your own credit card company, bank, payment processor which you can do because free markets and capitalism.

      1. There is much more solid ground for arguing that ISPs, payment processors, etc should be provide a platform that allows all constitutionally-protected speech. It just doesn’t hold up when you try to extend that argument to government control of websites.

        1. I love the strawman you build up for your opponents. Such an honest way of argumentation.

          1. WK is such a liar.

      2. Why aren’t these places forced into public accommodation like hotels and restaurants?

        Public accommodation may be wrong, but it should be applied evenly.

  8. Popular speech doesn’t need protection. “I hate Donald Trump and I wish he would fall off the planet” wins you Time Man of the Year and a Nobel Prize. “This election was a giant fraud, from the mail-in ballots that got dumped in unwatched boxes on the side of the road to the machines that stopped counting in six swing states at three a.m. and then reversed the lead to Dementia Joe” MUST BE CENSORED. Welcome to Parler, Rumble, Newsmax, OAN and more people going underground with their thoughts.

    1. Really? Because when Trump writes those things (multiple times a day) on Twitter, he doesn’t get censored. All that happens is his outlandishly false statements get tagged with a warning from Twitter that what he is saying is disputed.

      1. Fuck off sarcasmic

      2. Why aren’t the outlandishly false statements from Biden or Harris or Clinton, etc, tagged the same way?

        Why are not *all* oulandishly false statements tagged? Why Trump specifically?

        1. He is the only one of those people you mention who is regularly posting outlandishly false statements. It’s as simple as that.

          1. Fuck off sarcasmic

          2. Everything Biden says is ridiculous bullshit. Everything he says should be labeled as such.

          3. This could be the dumbest thing a partisan has ever said on this site.

            1. Adding such commentary is publishing so should make the entire site a publication, stripping away 230 protections.

          4. Except that he isn’t.

      3. You are right. They don’t censor the President of the United States. They just mark all his comments as lies.
        They did censor every journalist or individual that tried to share the accurate story of the Biden payola scheme, because it would legally make him unfit to be President.
        IRONY: 1000 books about Watergate for sale on Amazon, and two movies about it. Woodward still going strong with his gotcha interview of Trump.
        Zero investigation into ballot dumping, ballot harvesting, ballots in suitcases, Eric Coomer’s scrubbed Facebook posts, Soros’s ownership of Dominion, I could go on but even a moron can see that what happened in 2020 is way worse than some fools with flashlights stumbling around and getting busted in the DNC headquarters.

        1. There is plenty of unflattering information about Hunter Biden on Twitter.

          1. Fuck off sarcasmic

          2. Show one time SV worked to deplatform a media outlet on the left that was valid information like they did the NYPost you dishonest partisan lefty shit.

      4. “…Because when Trump writes those things (multiple times a day) on Twitter, he doesn’t get censored…”

        I keep thinking you can’t be as stupid as you seem, and then you prove me wrong.

        1. Why is he stupid Sevo?

          Have you ever done blow or you some kind of uptight square? If you tried it once and felt “addled” it was probably mostly Meth because you live in a rural shithole.

          Do you even drink or are you some kind of pussy Mormon?

          Would explain why you’re so goddamn angry and stupid.

          1. Angry and stupid? You’re soaking in it.

          2. Mormons are crooks.

      5. Outlandish. Lol. Youre fine with corporations that are in bed with a political party censoring and force commenting the other party. God damn son. Just admit you admire Venezuela like media.

    2. Try to sign up for parler and they want your phone number. Phuk Dat.

  9. Dumping Alex Jones was one of the best thing Facebook ever did. He still has is personal account, but none of this mass expulsion of conspiracy diarrhea anymore.

    As a private platform, Facebook can institute any reasonable rules they want. But too much and people go away. Have they gone too far. Not yet in my opinion, but they’re close. Simple and sensible rules to limit hate and nastiness is fine. But it’s tricky when hate and nastiness are now bona fide right wing political opinions. Just look at the commentariat to see this.

    It’s harder when it’s not a lone newspaper editor in a back office moderating letters to the editor. Facebook, Twitter, etc., are moderated by computer algorithms. The humans involved are way waaay too busy trying to take down the flood of pornography and confidence scams flooding their way that they don’t have time to impose any political bias like the right claims.

    But the right is now pissed they can’t mix the hate in with their political opinions, and so bail to sites that will. Good riddance. If you can’t express your political opinion on Facebook in a polite and reasonable manner, then get off.

    1. What the hell are you even doing here?

      No libertarian, left, right or center would write this… or even think this.
      You’ve really ripped your mask off with this post. Pure fascism, and that’s not even a hyperbole.

      1. Uh huh, sure. No libertarian would take the position that a private website should be allowed to decide what they want to put on their website.

        1. Fuck off sarcasmic

        2. No libertarian would endorse silencing someone’s constitutionally-protected speech, no matter who’s doing it. You wouldn’t know this WK, because you’re an orthodox progressive and not a libertarian.

          1. Please cite the section of the United States Constitution that says a privately-owned social media website has to put up all user-posted political content.

            1. Fuck off sarcasmic

            2. Are you being retarded on purpose? The American constitution isn’t some sort of libertarian bible.

              Silencing others may be permitted, but it’s still morally wrong. Admit it. Your desire to silence others is anti-libertarian.

              1. “No libertarian would endorse silencing someone’s constitutionally-protected speech, no matter who’s doing it.”

                You are the one who brought up the Constitution.

                Now, you are retreating to the position that you are only criticizing Facebook and Twitter, and not asking for government control.

                I have no problem with that. In fact, I agree that they have gone too far with some restrictions on user posts. Are you going to consistently stick to this libertarian position in the future?

                1. Your right on the first count. I forgot that I mentioned that the speech was constitutionally-protected, which does count as bringing up the constitution.

                  You’re wrong however on the second. I have never once asked for government control.
                  230, and specifically C. 1 & 2: “Good Samaritan” protection from civil liability for operators of interactive computer services in the removal or moderation of third-party material they deem obscene or offensive, even of constitutionally protected speech”, is government control.
                  It’s a special protection from the government afforded to no one else.

                  It doesn’t get more government controlling than a regulation giving a specific group liability protection that nobody else gets.

                  1. In the ideal world, everyone would have that protection, not just a few social media behemoths.

      2. What would a true libertarian write? That being mean and nasty is perfectly acceptable? That private companies should have no say on what people post? That anyone who doesn’t share your politics should be pissed on and shut down? That, my friend, is fascism.

        1. Well, except for the third question. But I imagine you want legislation defining what views to censor (anything but yours), which is the fascism you so deeply desire.

          1. Did you forget you outed yourself SQRLSY?

            1. Does this mean Sarc eats his own shit?

              1. That’s what he told us, yes.

          2. “But I imagine you want legislation defining what views to censor”

            It’s called 230, and you’re the one that’s been plumping for it you stupid, censorious, authoritarian fuck. Not me.

        2. The real sarcasmic has assured us that any time he is being a cunty little douchebag that it’s actually Tulpa.

          So fuck off Tulpa

        3. What would a true libertarian write? That being mean and nasty is perfectly acceptable?

          YES! Exactly, you stupid, censorious, authoritarian fuck.
          Forcing people to only say and think what you find acceptable is the opposite of libertarian.

    2. ‘The humans involved are way waaay too busy trying to take down the flood of pornography and confidence scams flooding their way that they don’t have time to impose any political bias like the right claims.’ Algorithms don’t generate complaints based on posts that don’t reflect their sociopolitical views, people like you do. Along with most of your ridiculously biased claims, this fails to pass the most basic of common sense tests, and lacks a citation. The positive, you’ve neatly proven that it’s not the right who are gunning for porn.

    3. Yep. The 1A protects us from government censorship. Facebook isn’t government. They can control content all they want. After all, nobody puts a gun to your head and demands that you use Facebook.

      1. I heard that there was a time when people lived out complete lives, from birth to death, without Facebook.

        1. Yeah, and whenever they went outside they had to check to make sure a Tyrannosaurus wasn’t waiting to devour them.

        2. I used it for a whole month. I’ve never used Twitter. I see people spend an entire afternoon scrolling up and down, laughing at this and yelling at that. Not my thing.

          1. You do it here every day with your multiple sockpuppets SQRLSY.

      2. I heard that Donald Trump was not even able to sign up for a Facebook account before 2004.

        1. Fuck off sarcasmic

        2. Weren’t you bragging about letting your dog fuck you the other day?

            1. Can’t remember which article. Ut he was going on about blowing his dog.

              1. Idk why, but I believe him yo

      3. Just because the government is all thats covered by 1a doesn’t mean you should support corporate censorship you globalist fuck.

        1. Support for the *concept* of corporate censorship over their own property is respect for their property rights. Why don’t you respect property rights, Jesse?

  10. Suppressing ‘Hate Speech’ on Social Media is suppressing speech.
    It doesn’t matter if it’s government, church groups, universities, progressive activists or private companies doing it. It’s wrong and libertarians should not be manufacturing excuses for it.

    1. Maybe, just maybe, those who are here claiming to be libertarians but who support policies that reduce or detract from civil liberties are not what they claim to be? Some flexibility in the case of governance is to be expected, and some patience given the low intellect of many leaders and the panic surrounding the pandemic. The wholesale praise of censorious and authoritarian measures, the support for ignoring 1A protections and demonizing of the religious in conjunction with the No True Jew/Christian/Scotsman fallacy are not a libertarian values. They are biased, xenophobic values of those who apparently view the out-group as inferior, and as has been said, confuse ‘ought’ or ‘should’ with ‘is.’

      1. “There are those” who claim to be libertarians, yet do not support forcing Facebook and Twitter to post content they do not want to post.

        1. lol you told us you eat shit SQRLSY

          1. He did.

        2. ‘Yet do not support forcing Facebook and Twitter to post content they do not want to post,’ learn to read what is written, not what you think is written -I will write about social media now. You are a good example, you typically support policies that infringe on civil liberties. In the case of the social media giants, they don’t post the majority of content, that would be the point of the section 230 argument. That aside, the issue that many ‘classic liberals’ and conservatives have is that the claim has been made that moderation would be sociopolitically neutral. It is not, it appears to focus on right-leaning content. From your comments I know you’re not tremendously bright, but one really has to be dim or a zealot to imagine my comment as support for government regulation of social media.

          1. So, are you saying that you consider a private party deciding what speech they want to allow on their own private website as an infringement of civil liberties?

            1. SQRLSY did you forget you outed yourself?

            2. Just because someone is allowed to do something and shouldn’t be prohibited from doing it, doesn’t mean it’s right. I think people should not be prevented from smoking, but I don’t think smoking is right.

              You really don’t/can’t understand libertarianism, can you?

              1. Hey Moose Fucker:

                Divorce is bad. Shall we outlaw divorce?

                Yes, censorship is bad, regardless of who does it. I HAVE NEVER ONCE READ OF YOUR WRITING THAT IT IS ***NOT*** THE BUSINESS OF GOVERNMENT ALMIGHTY TO PUNISH PRIVATE CENSORSHIP! Can you clearly write that? Or do you believe that it is the business of Government Almighty to mandate all good things, and prohibit (punish) all bad things? Has it ever occurred to your dim-witted brain, and boot-licking tongue, that such an approach leaves NO room for human freedoms?

                1. sarcasmic did you forget you outed yourself?

                2. Squirrelly, you’re probably rabid. We better take you to the vet to be put down right away. Ranting and raving and eating your own shit the way you do.

                3. Me – “Just because someone is allowed to do something and shouldn’t be prohibited from doing it, doesn’t mean it’s right.”

                  Sqrlsy – “Divorce is bad. Shall we outlaw divorce?”

                  facepalm.jpg
                  He’s just utterly fucking retarded, isn’t he?

                  1. Mamma… Are you, or are you not, capable of making a simple statement, specifically saying that PRIVATE CENSORSHIP should ***NOT*** be punished or curtailed by Government Almighty? You’re NOT, because that would require you to admit ERROR in the past, with ALL of your endless “punishment boners” that FORCE you to lust for Government Almighty to PUNISH private censors! You NEVER admit error, do you? Prove me wrong! Call for Governments Almighty to SPECIFICALLY refrain from punishing those supposedly horrible private censors? Can you do it? I bet not!

                  2. https://reason.com/2020/12/18/the-bipartisan-push-to-gut-section-230-will-suppress-online-communication/#comments

                    Mother’s Lament
                    December.18.2020 at 9:59 am
                    230’s special “protection from civil liability for operators of interactive computer services in the removal… even of constitutionally protected speech”, is the most unlibertarian, anti-speech clause possible.
                    It is completely unnecessary and just “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker” would suffice.

                    Eliminating the first special government protection clause would in no way affect a websites ability to host user comments.

                    But of course you know this, but you’re here to lie and gaslight.

                    End import.

                    Read the above carefully…

                    Mamma is clearly saying that she calls “unlibertarian”, a web site’s “privileges” to control THEIR OWN PROPERTY!

                    “…special government protection clause…” is BAD, because Mamma wants Government Almighty to enable you to SUE THE HELL OUT OF another party, for not running THEIR web site, the way that YOU want them to!

                    Stop talking out of both sides of your mouth, Mamma! Stop LYING, bitch!

                    1. Fuck, sarcasmic, this “durr, hurr I’m a mentally-ill sockpuppet” schtick is getting old.

                      But on the off chance you’re not just trolling with this gibberish; how the fuck did you come to the retarded conclusion that the government would sue people, if the government eliminated it special protection regulations like 230?

                      That’s beyond fucking dumb.

                    2. Hey gibbering idiot… Courts (and the ability to sue) are a function of Government Almighty! You support the right to sue? You have a punishment boner! Ass backed up (by YOUR punishment-seeking-clitoris ass) hypocrite-snit!

                      Can NOT admit error, can you, supercilious cunt?

                    3. Hey gibbering idiot… YOU sue me (in the courts of Government Almighty) or Government Almighty sues me in the courts of Government Almighty… WTF difference does it make? You STILL have a punishment boner! For ME not using MY web site, as YOUR bossy cunt wants me to! Can you EXPLAIN?

                    4. Lol. Someone casting aawsuit is a government action in shit eaters world. Fucking dumbass. No wonder you dont understand the difference between unbounded and bounded powers. Lol.

                    5. Grade school drop-out JesseSPAZ wants to lecture us, like a Great Legal Scholar, about “…Someone casting aawsuit…”

                      Can I cast an aawsuit against uneducated, vaguely-semi-literate idiots cluttering up the courts? After all, the courts ARE a function of Government Almighty, and they DO burn up MY tax dollars! And when they are done, if they find against me, they will PUNISH me, to satisfy the random punishment boners of the likes of JesseSPAZ and Momma the Moose-Fucker!

              2. I’m fine with you criticizing Facebook or Twitter for not allowing certain user content. Perhaps that is all you have been saying, and I have not understood. Criticize away!

                1. Fuck off sarcasmic

                2. It isnt a matter of understanding with you. It is you intentionally misreading posts and arguments and inserting strawman leftist fuck.

                  1. These kinds of leftists make me look forward to the escalation of the current civil war.

        3. Why do you live in a world of pure strawman you leftist fuck? Removing extra legal protections reserved for internet companies isn’t forcing them to do jack shit. How dishonest are you? God damn.

          1. It is an unnecessary destruction of a good and useful law that will destroy several business models and damage our economy, but, hey, who cares about that.

            1. A company that comments on, or culls others’ comments gives up the 230 protection for platforms. They should be flooded with lawsuits.

          2. A libertarian should support expanding 230 protections to every platform, not selectively removing them for some platforms.

            If a certain platform infringes on its user agreement, that’s an individual case, and doesn’t warrant a new law.

    2. Insulting Mother’s Lament’s mother while you are a dinner guest at his home is not allowed, and he will ask you to leave and unfriend you. Libertarians should stop condoning and enabling this censorship from Mother’s Lament.

      1. Haha you said you want to eat shit SQLRSY

      2. You are not at all clever.

      3. Strawmen make for all the best arguments.

        Also, an internet platform marketed to the public as a forum for sharing news and ideas is not a person’s kitchen.

        You’re trying to force an analogy and it isn’t working because your premise is both disingenuous and anti-libertarian.

        1. You must made that up.

          I don’t recall Facebook or Twitter being marketed much at all, let alone, like, a bunch of TV or Internet ads saying , “Hey, come to our platform to express your political views!”

          I recall joining Facebook because more and more of my friends and family were chatting there, and joining Twitter because I wanted to see what crazy-ass shit Trump is posting every day.

          1. “You’re just making that up.”

            iOS spell correction “helped” me with that first sentence.

            1. Fuck off sarcasmic

          2. Sigh. They say it on their own “about” page. Seriously, I don’t even…

            “Give People a Voice
            People deserve to be heard and to have a voice — even when that means defending the right of people we disagree with.”

            https://about.fb.com/company-info/

            1. Yawn. It’s a stretch to call a multi-billion company putting one highly vague, interpretable statement on their about page as “marketed to the public”.

              There are even statements on the same page about keeping the public safe, which has been their rationale for blocking deliberate misinformation.

              And you haven’t even covered Twitter. Twitter is not Facebook.

              1. Twitter is not Facebook.
                Stunning revelation.

                1. Sometimes Mother’s overlooks the obvious, so you have to point it out to him.

                  1. WK – “I don’t recall Facebook or Twitter being marketed… saying, “Hey, come to our platform to express your political views!”

                    *Show WK the definitive Facebook marketing statement literally saying exactly that*

                    WK – “Yawn. It’s a stretch to call a multi-billion company putting one highly vague, interpretable statement on their about page as “marketed to the public”.

                    It doesn’t get less vague than “People deserve to be heard and to have a voice – even when that means defending the right of people we disagree with” and you know it, you dishonest cunt. And there is no more of an authoritative page on a company’s public image than it’s “About” page. Also, why do you imagine that the company being multi-billion makes its marketing statements less relevant?

                    WK – “And you haven’t even covered Twitter”

                    See, it’s stuff like this that demonstrates that WK is just being a trolly shitposter.

                    Anyway, the very first thing that Google threw up: https://media.twitter.com/en_us/articles/blogs/2018/world-press-freedom-day-2018.html

                    After reading those paeans to free speech, you certainly doesn’t give the impression that they’ll lock your account for publishing a story about Hunter Biden like what they did to the New York Post.

                    1. Oh, I’m sure the New York Post social media person decided to sign up for Twitter because they were shopping around for a social media site and were convinced Twitter was the one to go with because of some blurb on their about page.

    3. It is not wrong for property owners to dictate what may or may not be said on their own property. That is called property rights.

      If you want the liberty to control what may or may not be done on your own property, then you would be well served to defend that liberty for others.

      1. I agree in principle. But I also think selectively offering 230 protections to some companies and not others is not very libertarian.

      2. Correct. And property owners ought to be liable for house they use their property. Hence section 230 needs to go.

        1. Wouldn’t it be more libertarian to expand 230 protections to everyone instead? Thinking out loud…

          1. 230 is written ok, but it should be enforced. If a site culls or comments on postings, that is publishing, and should be treated as such.

            1. My point is not about the distinction between open forums and publishers. I’m wondering why it’s ok for the government to have power over publishers in the first place.

              1. It’s not the government controlling publishers, it is that a site owner is not shielded from slander suits; i.e. it can be held accountable (sued) for anything it publishes on its site. The site owner is not held accountable for comments that others post on a publisher’s site.

                My point is that culling posts, or commenting on them constitutes publishing, so the site owner should be responsible.

                1. Why should the publisher be sued?
                  If a nightclub discriminates and only accepts young beautiful people, keeping some people arbitrarily out, and one of the clients breaks a bottle, why should the nightclub be sued, and not the client?

                  1. ^Right; Contrary to many I usually agree with here – It’s just wrong to allow landlords to be sued for actions done by renters. And that is exactly equivalent to the topic at hand.

                    And don’t kid yourselves; without the Section 230 protections the left is going to use those government “filtration” powers EVEN MORE for their socialist agenda just as soon as they have the power to do so. They are FAR more corrupt than the right.

                  2. …And to top that off with Section 230 doesn’t prohibit or release content posters from being legally liable. What’s even the purpose of trying to indict the web-host? Just because it’s easier?

  11. What does Ofra Klein mean by the “radical right”?

    Does (s)he think it includes people who voted for Brexit or Donald Trump?

    Opponents of open borders?

    People who complain too loudly about jihadists?

    Prolifers?

    1. Maybe the several 1000 white nationalists in the States? The massive, vicious mobs of tiki torch waving, polo shirt wearing ‘alt-right’ kids? Much like the 1000s of white supremacists the media was in a tizzy about in the 1990s. In Klein’s case, perhaps those who think Brussels/EU policies are elitist, racist, and don’t have the working people’s nor the disadvantaged’s best interests in mind, like all progressive policies?

      1. Why doesn’t it include all the leftists who are raging anti semites. Of all the people who have it in for the Jews, about 99% of them are leftists.

    2. I imagine “radical right” would be someone who reacts with anger and hatred at anyone who says anything critical about the “radical right.”

      1. Did you forget you outed yourself SQRLSY?

        1. How did you respond to his comment within a minute? What’s wrong with you fucks?

      2. “I imagine “radical right” would be someone who reacts with anger and hatred at anyone who says anything critical about the “radical right.””

        Game, set match! Merely by the clever use of words you’ve defined the problem out of existence.

        Or you would have done, if you could make reality conform to your verbal formulations.

        Which you can’t.

        1. It’s just the flip side of leftist “tolerance means not tolerating intolerance.”

          1. SQRLSY did you forget you outed yourself?

          2. “It’s just the flip side of leftist “tolerance means not tolerating intolerance.””

            I’m not sure I even understand that point, maybe you could explain it for slow people like myself.

            1. Leftists like to censor or shut down any disagreement in the name of tolerance. Disagreement offends them and makes them angry. So they call disagreement “intolerance,” and as tolerant people it is their duty to rid the world of intolerance.

              Similarly the radical right doesn’t tolerate disagreement.

              So my original point was that if you see someone outraged at criticism of the “radical right,” that probably means they’re part of the radical right.

              1. SQRLSY, remember when you told us you eat your own shit?

              2. if you see someone outraged at criticism of the “radical right,” that probably means they’re part of the radical right.

                Collectivising people is evil and you’re a garbage human for trying it.

                1. I don’t think that’s really you.

                  1. But are you really you?

    3. It’s not that hard to follow the link and get a taste of what “the radical right” means – it means exactly what you think it means. Anybody to the right of Bernie Sanders – and they’re suspicious of Bernie Sanders. You might notice there’s no such thing as the radical left.

  12. That little flag in the upper right makes these threads so much easier to read.

    1. The real sarcasmic has assured us that any time he is being a cunty little douchebag that it’s actually Tulpa.

      So fuck off Tulpa

    2. Did you forget you outed yourself SQRLSY?

  13. Even the shitposting trolls can’t do their job right. They missed my 10:54 comment. What a bunch of losers.

    1. Did you forget you outed yourself SQRLSY?

    2. “Even the shitposting trolls”

      ahahah SQRLSY GETTING MAD!

    3. I too hate you shitposting trolls SQLSRY!

  14. The problem is that there is a complete and absurd bias in enforcement.

    Actual death threats and statements of genocidal desire are considered acceptable if they are directed at the majority group (white men specifically). However, even minor disagreement or quotation of legal documents can get you fact-checked, censored, or banned if directed in a political direction you dislike.

    Then, enforcement is arbitrary and capricious. To give the most recent example, using an insult on someone’s sexuality will get you a 7-day ban or longer on Twitch, however a streamer got only a 3-day ban for actual pornography on her stream.

  15. It appears increasingly likely that herd immunity is arriving (and may have been achieved) in hundreds of communities, dozens of counties and several states, and will arrive in many more during the next several weeks/months before vaccines are readily available to the public.

    Many studies have found 3 – 10 times more Americans were infected with covid (than have tested positive), including a recent study finding 4 times more Texans had been infected.

    Herd immunity is likely achieved if/when/after 65%-70% of people (in workplaces, institutions, communities/counties/states) have been infected.

    According to the Allegheny County Health Dept, 32.8% of residents in Sewickley Heights (one of the wealthiest suburban Pittsburgh townships) has tested positive for covid.

    And according to leftwing lockdown lovers at Bloomberg/Hopkins, counties with the highest rates of people testing positive for covid
    (and most likely to be closest to achieving herd immunity) are:
    Crowley, CO – 27.4%
    Norton, KS – 21.6%
    Lincoln, AR – 20.7%
    Bon Homme, SD – 20.6%
    Dewey, SD – 20.6%
    Chattahoochee, GA – 20.4%
    Buffalo, SD – 19.9%
    Trousdale, TN – 19.2%
    Lake, TN – 18.4%
    Buena Vista, IA – 18.2%
    Dakota, NE – 17.2%
    Eddy, ND – 17.1%
    Foster, ND – 16.9%
    Ellsworth, KS – 16.3%
    Jackson, AR – 16.3%
    Lafayette, FL – 16.2%
    Childress, TX – 16.2%
    Seward, KS – 16.0%
    Nobles, MN – 15.9%
    Lee, AR – 15.5%
    Alfalfa, OK – 15.3%
    Big Horn, MT – 15.2%
    Menominie, WI – 15.1%
    Morton, ND – 14.9%
    Ford, KS – 14.9%
    Walsh, ND – 14.8%
    Finney, KS – 14.7%
    Logan, CO – 14.7%
    Hale, TX – 14.6%
    Sheridan, KS – 14.6%
    Stutsman, ND – 14.6%
    Pawnee, KS – 14.5%
    Crocket, TX – 14.3%
    Texas, OK – 14.1%
    Burleigh, ND – 14.1%
    Wayne, TN – 14.1%
    Aurora, SD – 14.0%
    Nelson, ND – 14.0%

    1. Note that all of the counties with the highest rates of covid (i.e. those testing positive) are rural.

      1. Rural areas and small towns are much less likely to take precautions. Early on the virus was mostly in big cities and people thought it would not affect them. So when it did hit it hit hard. Also people in those areas tend to postpone medical care which may be further away so are more likely to spread the disease. Those are all factors.

        Herd immunity is the most misunderstood term being thrown around today.

      2. Gee go figure areas with small populations have higher percentages. Could it be that twenty cases in la town of 500 is going to be a higher percentage than 20 people in. City of 5,000,000? Wow color me surprised.

        1. This is exactly right, and highlights the utter stupidity of government diktat.

          Here in KY, a county is designated as red if the incidence rate is 25 or more per 100000.

          More counties in the state have fewer than 10k than those with 100k or more, which means in those smaller counties you can have as few as 1 or 2 positive tests per day, and your entire county is essentially shut down.

          It’s fucking insane.

  16. If those fucking deplorables don’t stop spewing evil on hate-speech platforms, we will have to shut down their online accounts and confiscate their phones.

    –signed, The Enlightened Betters

  17. Humans are herding creatures and would rather find a comfortable echo chamber than to be bombarded with opinions with which they disagree…

  18. Twitter is flooded with the communist mindset. Better people should just move to Parler.

    1. They have.

      1. Or Gab. It attracts some outlandish characters, but if you tune them out, the level of discourse can be quite high.

  19. The targets of censorship reveal the patterns of the powers that control us. In particular, classification of Holocaust revisionism as “hate speech” reveals the power of Jewish and Israeli forces over us.
    Even over Mark Zuckerberg.
    Yes. Power. Sheer, raw, naked power. You can run from it, but you can’t hide from it.

    1. Everyone knows it’s you Misek.

      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. Read More.

  20. Suppressing ‘Hate Speech’ on Social Media Drives Users to New Platforms

    This is why we must regulate social media like a utility.

    Just as you can not be allowed to choose your garbage removal company, your phone company, your water company, your electrical company, etc.

    1. A+ sarcasm!

      1. remember when you told us you eat shit SQLRSY?

    2. Love it! The council of whatever city or county you live in would decide which social media utility would be granted a monopoly for online socializing in your locality! Has Nextdoor.com IPO’d yet?

      1. sarcasmic did you forget you outed yourself?

      2. I usually like your posts The White Knight, but I think regulating social media as a utility might backfire in unexpected ways. It might sound good on paper, but in practice it will almost surely only cause more harm and suffering to marginalized communities. Food for thought.

        1. Fuck off White Knight.

          1. Is this some kind of joke, or an accident for the second time. I’m not going to write it out again, but please refer to my post above regarding your salty language. It’s really not necessary.

            1. Fuck off White Knight.

              1. Okay seriously what is wrong with you?! I’m starting to get PO’d. Explain your intensions now. Are you just an internet troll trying to stir trouble or are you a child who’s gotten access to your poor parent’s laptop?

                1. Did you forget you outed yourself sarcasmic?

                  1. I don’t know who you are or where you came from but you’d better leave me the f**k alone right now. I’m seriously PO’d right now.

                    1. Did you forget you outed yourself sarcasmic?

                    2. I’m seriously about to lose it. You are insane. Leave me alone you white supremacist right-wing Christian terrorist. Your mind games don’t affect me.

                    3. Fuck off sarcasmic

                    4. Why are you tormenting me like this… Why? Just please have the decency to answer me that. Why are you doing this to me? Just make it stop. I am begging you from one human being to another. Just make it stop…

                    5. Fuck off sarcasmic

                    6. Are you super serial?

        2. I agree!

          1. Fuck off SQRLSY

    3. Sarcasm?

      Around this next of the woods, if you want garbage removed, you hire any one of a number of contractors to do it. Phone isn’t much of a choice, but there is some. Water? Pump it yourself or go thirsty, there is no town water here (nor sewer either). Electric? Your choice of “cheapest”, “green renewable” and maybe some others.

      1. That’s OK. In your neck of the woods, you might have to do your own socializing, like maybe in-person instead of online.

        1. Fuck off sarcasmic

      2. Obviously, you will need to be moved into the cities. For the good of society.

        Think of it as a reverse Khmer Rouge.

  21. Didjaevernotice, it’s always “radical right” or “alt-right” vs “progressives”?

    Howbout we start loosing the word “progressive” and just say “anti-liberal”?

    1. But Ctrl-Left is PERFECT!

    2. Fascist; please be as accurate as possible.

      1. Evil, then. Why mince words.

  22. Testing, testing, testing.

    All hail, Tulpa! He taught me everything I know!

    1. Oh, well. It’s been months and Reason IT has done nothing to fix the HAIR SPACE character spoofing problem.

      1. Fuck off sarcasmic

      2. So you can use it to rip off screen names again.

      3. No one cares.

        1. sarcasmic does. We both asked Reason IT to fix the problem months ago.

          1. I’ve had to contact them twice now. “Dude, tell IT to trim leading and trailing whitespace! It’s easy! The function is called trim!” I think they finally got it right.

            1. It doesn’t trim HAIR SPACE from screen names. I just tested it.

          2. You were cloning names back then shit eater.

            1. Totally was. And being totally upfront that I was doing it. And explaining exactly why I was doing it.

            2. To test the system.

  23. Nice try, but no.
    If you do not have your civil rights in the private sector, you do not have civil rights.
    Denny’s can no longer refuse meals to people with black skin and we are going to keep working towards the day when Facebook and Twitter (for example) cannot censor our speech because we are conservatives.
    Offensive speech, hate speech, and fake news are in the eye of the beholder and all protected speech.

    1. Cool! So, if you have a website, for, say, your church, I can force you to post my missive on why the city park across the street from your church should have a statue of Satan, and if you say no you are censoring my protected speech.

      1. Fuck off sarcasmic

      2. Not an equivalent analogy.

        1. Where is the exception to the equivalence?

          1. Don’t allow for public comments or posts if you only want to publish your views.

            1. There goes social media…

              1. We can all hope.

              2. Social media is a platform, not a publisher.

                Do you really not understand the difference, or are you just being purposefully obtuse for trolling purposes?

                1. Because you say it is?

                  Social media is social media. A new thing under the sun.

        2. So why should corporations be forced by government to publish content they objects to? What if the content interferes with their ability to make money?

          1. Only publish your own content.

          2. Nobody should be forced by the government to do anything, but by the same token they shouldn’t be specially protected by the government either.

            If they censor the legitimate speech of a client or violate an implied social contract with users, they should be eligible to be sued.

            1. Sued?! For deciding to whom they want to provide a free-of-charge service?

              1. LOL Knight!
                Zuckerberg didn’t become a billionaire by providing Facebook as a “free-of-charge service”.
                We are Facebook’s product that they sell.
                So it costs my privacy and my time dealing with all of their ad related BS.
                Nothing free about it

          3. You were fine with forcing bakers to bake cakes.

            1. No I wasn’t fine with forcing bakers to to bake cakes and the difference is obvious.
              The cake baker was being coerced into PERSONALLY doing something that was against his views and his will.
              On Facebook, for example, me posting from one news sources vs another requires no action from any Facebook manager, employee, or stockholder.
              There is no violation of any individuals rights

              1. You’re Tony’s sock puppet?

              2. Well, except the effort required to get Facebook up and running and connected.

              3. And the violation of individual rights comes in the form of expropriating private property.

                Look, you can make a case that we need to shoot Facebook before Facebook shoots us. But you can’t make a ‘libertarian’ argument for demanding they let you use their private property as you see fit.

                1. We need to rid ourselves of the entire progressive movement score it gets even worse. The US can’t survive with communists in charge. The have to go.

        3. It absolutely is an equivalent analogy.

      3. There are general exceptions to free speech. My fitness magazine doesn’t have to run your ad for Fat Lard cookies, nor do I have to publish your article about Eating Your Feelings and Loving It. The church has the same freedom to not run your Satan missive.
        Mass media platforms are held to a higher standard. I did not think I would ever see a day where Google was actively censoring political news. But they will soon find out that it was a bad idea when they are broken into pieces.

        1. So you’re saying the NYT must publish everything submitted because it’s a mass media platform?

          1. No, I said the opposite. A magazine was my example. Magazines, newspapers, and other publishers do not have to publish my shitty poetry. And if they defame me, they can be sued.
            Google and Twitter have protections because they are not publishers, so they have to allow me to publish my shitty poetry and they cannot be sued when I defame people using their platform.
            When they start actively censoring content and promoting stories, they become publishers. I am not sure what the answer to the problem is, but Big Tech has become a problem IMHO.

            1. But they’re mass media.

      4. Knight what you have posed is obviously a nonsensical false equivalent.
        A church website is a PRIVATE communication venue for the church.
        Facebook, Twitter, etc are public communication venues.
        Public vs private
        The the church website is a speech venue for the church, Facebook is a speech venue for the public.
        There is also the commercial nature, but the public vs private is enough

        1. This conflating of private property with public property is a Marxist tactic in its quest to take over the former.
          In the US, they’ve already managed to claim that some private businesses lost their full rights to their private property, simply because the government has deemed them “public accommodation”. Libertarians should not play this game.

    2. So, taking away Denny’s civil rights we’re better off?

  24. Nice article, even handed and very Libertarian.
    8 uses of the character string “right”.
    One as a synonym for correct.
    One as a synonym for prerogative.
    Six to describe views on the political spectrum towards the individual rights end; ALWAYS modified to indicate extremism.

  25. “… on the political spectrum towards the individual rights end“

    Where, precisely, does the blog post talk about “right” describing a concern about individual rights?

    1. Fuck off sarcasmic

  26. The canard is that anyone or any business has the right to censor anyone in an environment of free speech.

    People are free to lie, coerce even though civilization demands punishment for it.

  27. If you think that the highest court in the land will protect your rights you would be wrong.

    The Canadian Supreme Court has ruled that truth can be hate speech, illegal. So much for the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The cancel culture at the highest level.

    “In a statement that has practically received universal condemnation from both left and right, the Supreme Court Judge Rothstein wrote that “truthful statements can be presented in a manner that would meet the definition of hate speech, and not all truthful statements must be free from restriction.”“

    http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/whatcott-supreme-court-labelled-truth-hate-speech-in-homosexuality-case

    1. Wow, that’s dangerous!

      1. It’s worse than just dangerous, censoring truth is a crime against humanity.

        Every living thing on earth evolves by recognizing reality and modifying their behaviour to work with it.

        Truth is reality. Any censorship of it, even inadvertently, inhibits our ability to evolve.

        Are you going to let anyone do that to you?

  28. I’ve been unjustifiably censored on many platforms. However I don’t blame the platform. I blame the other commenters who say things like, “Well obviously you’re still here so stop complaining.”

    One reason that platforms censor is that the speech is just intolerable to their delicate sensibilities (e.g. “addiction isn’t a disease”). Another reason is that a gang of bullies demands the censors ban certain people (e.g. “Israel is an apartheid state”). But probably the core reason is that social media companies are simply running out of technical tasks and so a censorship regime is a handy make-work scheme to keep their elfs busy for a few months. We have to accept that we are in late stage capitalism and need to think about retirement (e.g. “Kingdom Come – get raptured today!”).

  29. Libertarians discover consumer rights in the strangest places.

    It’s simply not a constitutional matter whether businesses are required to pay for a platform for your speech, whatever that speech is. Or should JesusIsMyBoyfriend.com required to post atheist screeds? Come on people.

    The fact is when the neo-Nazis are kicked off of Facebook and Twitter, they will find alternative platforms. Those alternative platforms have about a gazillionth the reach of Facebook and Twitter. So good. Keep them contained instead of spreading evil propaganda to your grandmother.

    1. Naturally, you pick the wrong approach.
      In 1939 Hitler’s book was hastily translated into English and published so everyone could understand what kind of monster they were up against. It was all right there without sugarcoating or redactions.
      Was that a good idea or not?

      1. Where people could comment on what he said, just as Twitter attaches comments to Trump’s misinformative posts labeling them as misinformation?

        1. This is over your head.

    2. You have no faith that truth, reality, when witnessed overcomes lies, evil.

      So you choose to violate our most fundamental right, to share and recognize truth, reality.

      Your lack of faith has coerced you to do evil.

      1. Quoting darth vader?

      2. Evil will always triumph over good because good people have limits, while evil people do not.

        1. Is that what happened in WW2?

          1. Depends on who you ask. Ask the people who were firebombed in Dunkirk. Ask the people who were firebombed in Tokyo. Ask the people of Nagasaki or Hiroshima.

            That is not to minimize the atrocities of the Nazis or Soviets.
            However had we been the losers, it wouldn’t have been difficult to paint us as the bad guys.

            1. What makes you believe that to be true? Does it even matter if we are truly evil?

              Do you think that’s what the veterans and their families think?

              1. Do you think the Germans thought of themselves as evil?

                1. No,

                  I think that there was and is an effective campaign of propaganda, lies, in every nation coordinated by those who desire the power afforded by exclusive knowledge and executed by mainstream media.

                  This establishment of conspiracy of lies requires censorship of truth.

                  That is why 1a is an inalienable right that guarantees freedom.

                  The truth shall set you free.

    3. “Or should JesusIsMyBoyfriend.com required to post atheist screeds?”

      Does JesusIsMyBoyfriend.com present itself as a publisher or public platform, Tony? Do you understand what the difference between the two is?

      Come on, Tony. This isn’t difficult.

      1. If you want to socialize Facebook, then we get to socialize Facebook. That means I get to have a say on what they do as a citizen, not just a consumer. So sure, let’s do it.

    4. I agree with you, Tony, private individuals and businesses should not be coerced by law to associate with those they don’t want to, nor cater to them.
      Do you agree then that, by the same logic, private individuals and businesses such as employers or restaurants should not be coerced by the law to hire or serve those they don’t want to, without giving any further explanation (whether it’s due to race, sexual orientation, etc)?

  30. “build your own YouTube”

    “Ok”

    “Your platform is a platform for hate and should be cancelled, payment processors should cut you off and your certificate authority should revoke you very”

    1. And maybe a good argument can be made that, at that level, constituonally-protected speech should require government intervention. Especially, since government is more involved in establish those types of businesses.

  31. yeah !! fake and Hatefull content is increasing on the internet

  32. I was hoping Tucille would offer an alternative to WordPress and Blogger. As soon as the Looter v Looter election campaign heated up, WordPress changed to a panel for 12-year-olds that waits until you’ve about finished a blog entry–then deletes everything with an Unexpected Block error message. Blogger also turned to crap at the same time, just not as badly. It’s easier to draft in Blogger then paste into WordPress. Also, “dogfight,” HL Mencken’s description of the 1928 election campaign, is now a hate speech tag.

    1. All the cool pundits are flocking to substack. I’m surprised he didn’t mention them.

    2. Social media replaced Blogger and WordPress (free version) because if you don’t pay to host your own content, then you don’t own it.

  33. “If you’ve ever wondered why some people now get upset over the “OK” hand sign, it’s because it might be an expression of support for white supremacy, a way of trolling censors, or just a quick, easy, and traditional way to indicate agreement.”

    We get upset about this “OK” hand sign nonsense, because it was literally a 4-Chan prank, you can prove that to the people they pranked, and they don’t care. Their position is basically, “Once we decided that it was a white supremacy sign, it was. Period”

    These morons think they define reality, and so even if they’re tricked into believing something, their believing it makes it true!

    1. These morons think they define reality

      Intersectionality defined. It’s a narcissistic academic cult where the individual defines reality for everyone else.

    2. It’s not so much that they believe it, but that they will keep on saying it, knowing they’re wrong, because they admitting to being tricked is not an option.

      There’s a lot of that going around.

      1. No skreech it’s just a woke lefty sjw thing to get pranked and not admit it.

    3. Brett, that prank cuts both ways though. Yes it started out as a prank by 4chan to try to convince gullible people that it was a “white supremacy” symbol. But the symbol was also actually appropriated by real white supremacists in order to further the “prank”. Such as:

      https://www.insider.com/new-zealand-shooting-brenton-tarrrant-white-power-sign-in-court-smirks-2019-3

      Is that just a prank? How do you know?

      At what point is a prank no longer a prank?

      1. Charles Manson liked the Beatles.

        But that has nothing to do with why the Beatles suck.

      2. Look, white supremacists found the whole thing so hilarious they decided to play along. That doesn’t make making a circle with your thumb and finger a white supremacy symbol. It just means that white supremacists have a sense of humor.

        It’s still a prank, because the prank didn’t erase the mainstream use of the symbol. The only people who don’t mean “OK” by it are people pranking humorless left-wingers.

  34. Stopping in to see if there are any intelligent replies to my posts. No dice.

    Though it is flattering how much my name is taken in vain.

    1. Your posts weren’t intelligent to begin with sweetie.

    2. Shut up skreech.

  35. Property rights are property rights.

    If I run a forum, I get to decide what content belongs on that forum. It doesn’t matter if that forum is Twitter, or if that forum is some local hobbyist club or some forum run by church ladies.

    If you want to take away the ability of Twitter to decide what gets tweeted or not, then you are also advocating taking away the ability of local groups to decide what they want on their forums as well.

    Twitter/Facebook/Etc. are banning “hate speech”. So the haters are going to Parler/MeWe/Etc. That is exactly how these things are supposed to work. No government intervention needed. Forum owners are deciding for themselves what they want to see on their properties.

    This is a VICTORY for the libertarian model of the Internet. So unsurprisingly the tribe with the smaller market share is upset and wanting to use government force in order to impose their will upon the dominant and larger social media landscape. Quelle surprise.

    1. The real question is:
      Is censoring “hate speech “ a good idea?

      1. That depends entirely on the subjective opinion of the property owner in question.

        The libertarian answer here is to let individual property owners decide for themselves the type of speech they would like to see on the forums that they own.

        1. The libertarian answer is also that property owners are liable for the consequences of their decisions.

      2. While you may think that’s an unambiguous question, it isn’t.

        Before it can be discerned if it is evil, hate speech must be clearly defined.

        Hatred is conflict. Conflict in speech always is the result of lying. Therefore hate speech is “lying”.

        Should lying be censored? No, but it should be illegal and punished equally applied to all.

        1. And who gets to decide what is true and what is not? That’s an authoritarian position, if I ever heard one…

          1. It has been firmly established that misek is an idiot.

            1. I’m starting to get that.

            2. No, misek is a nazi.

              1. Nazis are your bogeyman not mine.

                I hope they also fill your mind with logic you can’t refute.

                1. Why are you saying Misek’s a Nazi? Just because you disagree with someone doesn’t make them a Nazi, this sort of hyperbolic rhetoric is usually used by the left (and is used interchangeably with fascist, climate denier, racist, etc).

                  1. It’s bigotry.

                    People who don’t value truth, like the ones who advocate censorship, don’t understand the need to consider counter arguments.

                    Ad hominem is just one logical fallacy used to distract from their bigotry.

                    In internet terms, they are trolls.

          2. Truth is reality. In other words, it is what it is. It doesn’t have agency or care what you want. That may seem authoritarian to you but it isn’t.

            People who possess intelligence can discern it using logic and science.

            Those like you without such a toolbox are recognized and mostly ignored.

            1. I’m not concerned with the absolutism behind truth. I’m concerned with your willingness to give the government a carte blanche to establish what the truth is, and to punish those perceived by the government as untruthful. This leads to prison sentences for amateur historians in civilized Europe who question the truth as established by the official sources. I think it’s a dangerous precedent, and I am glad the US has chosen to allow free political speech (for now).

              1. I never suggested “ willingness to give the government a carte blanche to establish what the truth is, ”

                That is your fabrication alone borne out of fear and ignorance.

                Questioning truth never need be falsely stating it. That is corruption.

                Requiring that truth be supported by irrefutable evidence of logic and science while allowing everyone to record what they witness in an environment of free speech will guarantee the end of lying and conspiracy.

                We have the technology.

                1. You stated above that you wanted to make lying illegal. How can that be accomplished, without the government deciding what is the truth and what is a lie? I’m pretty sure they’ll deem you a liar for pointing out that the individual with a penis and testicles is not in fact a full fledged woman, for example.

                  1. Recognizing and enforcing the truth does not require being the one who discerns it.

                    The scientific definition of sex requires functioning reproductive organs as well as the correct chromosomes. Not simply a frankenweenie.

                    Your fear and ignorance inspired a weak example

    2. “If I run a forum, I get to decide what content belongs on that forum.”

      Not if you have presented it as an open forum for your users. You have given up absolute rights to control if you have offered an implicit or overt contract to your users and creators.

      1. You can change the rules though. There is no actual contract.

        Facebook and Twitter are ridiculous. I don’t really care what happens there. None of it is any business of mine to say in any case.

        1. It is true that as the owner you can reclaim full control. But until you do, until you change the terms of the agreement, you are violating the agreement when you do not uphold your end of it.

          I own a dollar bill. I agree to exchange it to you for a bottle of water. You hand me the water. But since I am in possession of, and own, the dollar bill I decide I am no longer giving it to you. That is prerogative so long as the parties are made aware and made whole OR I am now in violation of the agreement. That has nothing to do with the property right, really.

          When FB says they are a platform for the public to share ideas… then do not allow ideas to be shared, then they are in violation. They need to restate the terms honestly OR hold up their end of the bargain. Failure to do either does in fact make them ethically wrong and, I would say in a world where contracts are backed by law, legally wrong.

    3. If your business is conducted in a nation ostensibly with the right to free speech then your business can’t violate that right any more than you could conduct murder in your home even if the victim walked in.

      1. The 1A applies to people who use force, not to businesses.

        1. 1a is an inalienable right.

          What makes you think it is alien to business?

          1. Because it starts with “Congress shall make no law”.

            1. Finish that statement,

              “It guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely. “

              Are you actually suggesting that, by omitting the words, 1a advocates everything and everyone but congress to restrict free speech?

              Yes you are an idiot.

              1. I’m not talking about your ideal world. I’m talking about the First Amendment as it is enforced, in practice. Initially Congress was prohibited from infringing on the right to (political) speech. Eventually, through some legal weaseling, it was passed down to the states. Nowhere does it apply to private businesses, in general terms, in practice nowadays.

                1. I am talking about what free speech means as an inalienable right to guarantee every individuals freedom from oppression.

                  If we don’t have a clear picture of the ideal of free speech we won’t know when we deviate from it.

                  You obviously don’t care about what free speech should entail such that you advocate the oppression and violation of it by business.

                2. Actually, it wasn’t by “legal weaseling” that it was applied to the States, but by the 14th Amendment. (Really, the 9th and 10th Amendments would have sufficed to extend Federally-protected rights to the States, but for some reason, they are the most ignored Amendments.) Same likewise with other rights defended by other Amendments in The Bill of Rights.

          2. You can’t tell government to screw and patronize someone else. They’ve got the monopoly on force, and you can’t escape that. So the 1A was put into place to protect us from government. Businesses are private entities, so they can make whatever rules they want. Don’t like it? Patronize someone else. Unlike government, they can’t hold a gun to your head and demand that you cough up some dough.

    4. Twitter should be able to decide what goes on their platform

      And like all publishers they should be legally responsible for their decisions; they shouldn’t get special government exemptions from liability.

      Hence, Section 230 needs to go.

      1. Then it will be all or nothing. If a church wants to host an online forum, and a bunch of assholes spam it with “Satan is God!!!” according to you the church can’t censor that since it’s protected religious speech. Or they can, but the Satanists can sue and win.

        Unless that’s the whole intent. You know, to let the heckler’s veto shut down the internet.

      2. Hey dimwit, Twitter *is* deciding what goes on their platform, which is why Section 230 should stay.

        They get no special exemption you mental midget, that was enshrined into law a good decade before Twitter existed.

        Removing Section 230 will basically shutdown Twitter. You won’t even be able to revel in it in here. People not responsible for content they didn’t create is the concept.

  36. “Yet, much remains unknown about the decisions of platforms on how content is moderated and what the consequences are for mobilization on the radical right.”

    And the whole problem of why censorship is trendy is the idea that the only speech that society has to be concerned about comes from the “radical right”. There is apparently no such thig in their minds as a radical left despite the destruction in many American cities by leftist movements just this past year. It is a scare by the Center-Left to shut down their opponents to the right.

  37. New Year 2021 Jobs : In Covid-19 Stay At Home & Start making money this time…Job opportunity for everyone! Work from comfort of your home, on your computer And you can work with your own working hours. You can work this job As A part time or As A full time job. You can earn from 65$ An hour to 1000$ A day! There is no limitations, it All depends from you And how much you want to earn each day. You can check it out here. Go to Home Tab……____

  38. New Year 2021 Jobs : In Covid-19 Stay At Home & Start making money this time…Job opportunity for everyone! Work from comfort of your home, on your computer And you can work with your own working hours. You can work this job As A part time or As A full time job. You can earn from 65$ An hour to 1000$ A day! There is no limitations, it All depends from you And how much you want to earn each day. You can check it out here. Go to Home Tab……____https://bit.ly/3rwmBWT  

  39. “ In the process, they’re also driving conspiracy theorists and flat-out loons to take refuge in ideological hot houses where their ravings go relatively unchallenged.”

    Like say…

    1. Like Twitter?

    2. Reason comments?

      1. Yes, for all Reason has done due to its TDS in its articles, the comment section is still relatively free, thank FSM.

  40. But Parler sucks so bad. It looks way worse than Twitter and it’s mainly populated with people I don’t much care to even listen to, now that the election is over and I’m out of coalition mode. And MeWe? Seriously? Why bother. I’ve been signed out of Facebook proper 3 1/2 months now, I took Twitter off my phone, and while I still look at Instagram more than I should, I’m really not interested in building new social media experiences.

    1. I’m like you. I’m looking more for asocial&/i> media platforms, where you can just be you, either alone or with the like-minded.

  41. Sadly; Your “phone app” suggestions still cannot replace my desktop Facebook. WHY isn’t there a REAL alternative to Facebook yet and if there is why is it so crazy hard to find?

  42. social media companies have the right to apply any or no restrictions to their own services.
    Payroll Services | Payroll Outsourcing Company in India

  43. Attempts to suppress political speech have never succeeded.

    1. Okay, Karen.

  44. “it’s because it might be an expression of support for white supremacy, a way of trolling censors, or just a quick, easy, and traditional way to indicate agreement.”

    I know 4chan pranks have escalated from the bomb threats of the 00s to electing Trump, but guys, the fact that you even think for a moment that someone making the Ok sign is a dogwhistle shows you can’t distinguish fact from fiction. It was always a troll. Someone realized that when you make your fingers like that, it sort of makes a W and P for white power. It’s really more of a W and an O, which is why actual white supremacists never started using the Ok sign. You have to stretch the boundaries a bit. Trolls have been mocking cucked institutions like the ACLU and ADL for years now by tricking them into believing everything is a hate symbol. That’s how we got Pepe designated as such. Remember those articles where people said drinking milk is a symbol of white supremacy? You’re welcome.

    The court jester has always been the one able to speak truth to power. The power dynamics have merely shifted. Instead of kings, we have Democrats and their public/private propaganda organizations. We’re the counter-culture now and unlike the Ds, nothing is out of bounds for us.

  45. Social media is a waste of time, censored and fact checked by paid checkers with alternative motives and conflicts of intrest. No independence. Moving to new platforms only invites the socialist/woke trolls and commies to destroy those also.

  46. Unfuckingbelievable that people who are butthurt over Trump losing all of a sudden discover the concept that corporations have certain ethical obligations to American citizens regardless of profit. It’s almost like there are no principles whatsoever here. Imagine if you felt the same way about oil companies.

    1. Scratch a libertarian, uncover a fascist.

  47. As crazy as this might sound, even to some libertarians, I’ve found that wearing a COVID-19 mask and practicing ventrilloquism is the best platform ever!

    The Powers-That-Be–whether they are an elite or a mob, whether Right-Wing Holy Rollers or Left-Wing Woke scolds–can’t “deplatform” you if they don’t know from whence the “offensive” message comes. And you can practice it anywhere!

    And ventrilloquism with a mask can make the world more civilized as well. Once, I told a cussing, ranting Holiday customer in the checkout line: “Somebody’s getting coal in their stocking!” and because he didn’t know where it was coming from, he was never the wiser!

    Another time, there were some loud-mouth, fussing, rowdy teens carrying on and I threw them a message in Fred Sanford’s voice: “Quit showin’ out in the store, you big dummies!”

    You people are so gosh-darned lucky to have this opportunity in the midst of the COVID-19 crisis! Take advantage of it! Seize it!

    1. It is the second most useful thing libertarians can do.

  48. Sounds like a good way to lose your job as a Walmart greeter.

    BTW that’s not what I meant by businesses not having the right to restrict free speech.

  49. So Twitter and Facebook are monopolies, and by actively discouraging diarrhea-mouths, they are spawning massive competition?

    All the shit is moving over to Parler and MeWe?

    Cool, cool. Libertarians can spike the football, now.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.