Social Media

Ron Paul Says He's Been Locked Out of His Account, but Facebook Says It Was a Mistake

No one has a right to a Facebook platform, but purges can and should be criticized.

|

UPDATE: In an email on Monday night, a Facebook spokesperson told Reason that it had mistakenly locked former Rep. Ron Paul's page. "While there were never any restrictions on Ron Paul's page, we restricted one admin's ability to post by mistake. We have corrected the error."

Shortly after reposting an article that criticized Twitter's decision to ban President Donald Trump, former congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul says he was locked out of his own Facebook page.

The page is still active and appears to be functioning normally for other users, but Paul claimed in a Twitter post that he'd been blocked from managing the page. Paul says that Facebook said he had "repeatedly" violated "community standards," though he disputes that claim and says the social media site never identified an offending post.

 

Paul had posted only one item to his Facebook page on Monday: a link to the congressman's weekly syndicated column, in which he criticized Twitter's decision to ban Trump. That move "was shocking and chilling, particularly to those of us who value free expression and the free exchange of ideas," wrote Paul. "The justifications given for the silencing of wide swaths of public opinion made no sense and the process was anything but transparent."

Those are valid criticisms, keeping in mind of course that Trump had just used his Twitter page to promote a rally that turned into a riot. Twitter's decision to ban Trump is well within the private company's rights, but it does raise some not easily answered questions about how the site will handle other world leaders' accounts in the future.

Paul had also recently posted a clip of a video in which Daniel McAdams, executive director of the Ron Paul Institute, questioned whether last week's riot had been intended to distract from Congress' planned debate of alleged "anomalies" in last year's election results.

If so, that would be own-goal by the president's supporters who stormed the capitol last week. There is no indication whatsoever that any group other than Trump's supporters were responsible for the riot.

Needless to say, the social media giant's decision to lock Paul's page is not censorship. The most recent posts made to Paul's Facebook page are available on the institute's website and have been disseminated through Twitter, YouTube, and other online platforms. Indeed, both posts are still available on Paul's Facebook page. Without more information from Facebook, we can only speculate about why Paul has apparently been locked out of his page.

And that's exactly the problem. Facebook does not owe anyone a platform—but if it is changing its standards for what content will be allowed, it ought to explain the new rules in terms that are easily understandable and equally applied. The same is true for other platforms. Those that don't may find that they've only made themselves irrelevant in an online world built around openness and free discussion.

Social media sites can and should be criticized when they attempt to limit certain voices—particularly when they do so without providing clear and objective reasons for ruling certain content out of bounds. Twitter's decision to permanently ban Trump seems to have set off a purge across multiple social media sites with broad yet vague criteria (to the extent that any clear criteria even exist) for shutting down certain sorts of speech.

The president's use of social media to spread obvious lies and stir up violence may have deserved a digital sledgehammer. But moral panic is not a solid content moderation strategy.

NEXT: Cuomo’s Vaccine ‘Fix’ Is Still a Tangled Mess of Rules, Restrictions, and Fines

Social Media Facebook Twitter Ron Paul

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.

Please to post comments

502 responses to “Ron Paul Says He's Been Locked Out of His Account, but Facebook Says It Was a Mistake

  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. “No one has a right to a Facebook platform, but purges can and should be criticized.”

      Ahahah Boehm realized all that Dem cock he gobbled won’t help him one bit ahahahahaha

      1. Everybody can earn $500 Daily… Yes! you can earn more than you think by working online from home. I have been doing this job for like a few weeks and my last week payment was exactly 2537 dollars.
        See More Info…..EASY ONLINE EARNING

        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 jobS to do and its earnings are much better than regular office XXX 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…..READ MORE

      2. I think part of the reason that Facebook and others are being so blatant in their censorship is that they are angling to force Congress’ hand to have them regulated as, or much like a utility.

        Utilities don’t have competition.

        1. Could be. They certainly wouldn’t have done this if the Dems had not won. I personally think their motivation is fear more than greed. The Dems have been wobbling all over left field, no one can tell what they will do, but it’s crystal clear what they’d like to do.

          1. I have sat in conference calls with these people. They absolutely want to do this in the companies. They have merely been looking for the chance to do it. Murdering parler a week after the Capital riots was purely so that their allies on the left could give them enough air cover to get away with it.

            Google’s internal memegen board is FULL of gifs gloating about exactly this stuff.

            1. I have sat in conference calls with these people. They absolutely want to do this in the companies.

              That staff meeting that got leaked where they talked about trying to prevent a 2016 repeat basically gave the game away.

              These people have gone full Oceania, and it’s not hyperbole anymore to say that. Especially when they’re being so open about it now.

              1. I am making over $9k a month working part time. I stored being attentive to different human beings inform me how much money they are able to make on line so I decided to lok into it.TDg well, it turned into all actual and has completely modified my life.

                That is what I do…. Home Profit System

        2. Social media stocks are taking a big hit today.
          Never a good idea to throw away millions of accounts. Your employees might be 98% woke but your customers definitely aren’t.

        3. It’s that kind of comment that keeps me coming back to reason

          1. 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. Every Person join this working easily by just just open this website and follow instructions
            COPY This Website OPEN HERE….. Visit Here

          2. You don’t want to come back to Reason because I consider it likely that companies like FB want to be turned into utilities?

      3. Boehm has realized that he’s got an article out there somewhere in time that he wrote which has a minor consideration that likely will be considered by someone on the far left to be a microaggression in a 3rd wave purge. …and that Reason doesn’t have an edit button for him either.

        Boehm’s famous last words, heard so often during the French and Russian revolutions, “no wait wait, I’m on your side.”

        1. Oh everyone who ever wrote for or commented on or retweeted Reason is on the list, it’s just a question of how high.

          1. I am making over $9k a month working part time. I stored being attentive to different human beings inform me how much money they are able to make on line so I decided to lok into it.EFd well, it turned into all actual and has completely modified my life.

            That is what I do…. Home Profit System

          2. Starring method man and redman

      4. ffgrr

    1. And you’ll keep waiting. Ron Paul is one of those icky wrongthinkers. Reason writers would crawl over broken glass to defend big tech, and the fact that Ron Paul is getting shafted only sweetens that deal.

      1. ENB thinks he corrupted the Libertarian party with racists.

        1. Did you ever read his newsletters?

          Yeah, Ron Paul didn’t write them. Rothbard and Rockwell did. But Ron Paul never disowned the overt racist shit that was in them.

          1. So everyone who ever read one of his statements is a racist by what measure?

            1. Or even discusses them without angry condemnation. So now we are all racists by default.

              1. By default you are a racist unless you vote correctly, repeat the correct phrases often, donate to the correct candidate, agree to surrender any liberty when and as demanded, and realize that every breath you take is a microaggression.

            2. Did not say that. Those who WROTE the statements are racist, and the dude that never distanced himself from them looks very bad.

              1. That would be Obama, not distancing himelf from his pastor. Rev Wright maybe? I forget the name. Then there are all those Marxists academics and Democratic Socialists who none of the Democratic leadership have distance themselves from, and Antifa/BLM who got literal government support to burn, loot, and murder.

                Yeah, let’s worry about Ron Paul instead.

              2. Of course, everyone must always distance themselves from anyone and anything who has ever said anything offensive in someone’s opinion, and they must do so it immediately and often thereafter, even if it is obvious that they had nothing to do with it in the first place.

                At least 75% of every speech should be dedicated to dissecting and disowning everything, and if you even miss something, obviously it proves you approve of everything you didn’t disown.

                1. Yup. This is why everyone with a Che Guevara t-shirt is rightfully considered a homophobe.

                  That’s how it works, right?

                  1. “works”?? “WORKS”??

                    It “works” as we SAY it works, comrade, up to and including our “we know it when we see it” definition of what racism is, and the classification of racism as worse than anything else in the world.

                    Sincerely hoping you’ll express yourself appropriately,
                    Your Fucking Rulers

              3. Did not say that. Those who WROTE the statements are racist, and the dude that never distanced himself from them looks very bad.

                Looks very bad? But he can still be a libertarian though right? Hey guys, can a racist be a libertarian?

              4. It’s a mistake to allow yourself to be dragged into the “distancing” game. At some point you have to stop, after all, the left wants you to distance yourself from EVERYBODY.

                And at that point, refusing becomes an endorsement due to the prior distancing, and you’ve been spending all your time kicking out supporters.

                That’s why the left has never repudiated Farakann or Sharpton. They know this game, they invented it, and they have no intention of playing it themselves.

          2. Yet Rothbard and Rockwell seemed to maintain cred with the lib “mainstream”, even as hard as they tried running away from it.

            Roy Childs said Murray should run for mayor, considering he’d get the Jewish vote because he’s Jewish, and the black vote because he’s antisemitic.

            1. Oh absolutely fuck those assholes too.

            2. Today’s American Jew is as secular as it gets. When one votes for another Jew it’s because of shared socialist values, not any kind of religious/racial solidarity. They’d be more likely to vote for a black person for being black than another Jew for their Jewishness. Maybe that’s just the Jews in Brooklyn and Brookline, but that’s most of em.

              1. It’s shocking how easily they vote for the people who will one day start the next Jewish Holocaust.

          3. “Well, I tell you what, if you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black.”

            “Unlike the African-American community, with notable exceptions, the Latino community is an incredibly diverse community with incredibly diverse attitudes about different things.”

            “You got the first mainstream African American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”

            All real things that Biden really said. Somehow nobody seems to give two fucks about that fact that he’s clearly an actual racist (as in sees black people as lesser).

            Here’s food for thought. Nobody actually believes any of the current racial justice horseshit that they espouse, since much like social media companies VERY selectively applying their terms of service, they are able to inflate or deflate the severity and “harm” of one’s language based on pure old fashioned 100% homegrown convenience. The accusation of “racism” is a cudgel that’s become the most convenient and effective get-out-of-argument-free card that has ever been devised in our politics.

            Everyone and everything now easily passes the bar for it. It is simultaneously the most severe crime in public life and also the most unprovable since unlike, say looting or arson, it is a completely abstract rhetorical concept. Yet despite the fact that it’s current form is no less subjective or meaningful than saying that has an offensive odor, it has managed to climb it’s way to the tippy top of our performative moral hierarchy. Performative may be redundant because I’m not very convinced anyone left in the public debate has a moral framework concerned with anything more than performance.

            The idea that same people that applaud Coates preaching “racial essentialism” (race is eternal and inescapable) and Kendi (past injustices can only be solved by future injustices) will condemn Lew Rockwell is laughable. We’re actually at a point where we are back to discussing creating laws treating people differently based on skin color as a good thing by these “thought leaders.” That is literally the textbook definition of racism.

            The absurdity of thinking that you can use that accusation to wholly dismiss entire works of incredibly important figures (on the left and the right as if that scale actually means anything) is saddening. The fact that it’s become so common and widely accepted is a sheer lack of intellectual curiosity among the people that are supposed to be the “intellectuals. ”

            Everyone’s “racist.” And what happens when people realize that the accusation will be levied regardless of attempts to appease and completely looses it’s efficacy. Congratulations, you’ve made it rhetorically impossible to distinguish between Archie Bunker and David Duke. You win. Now what?

            1. “Nobody actually believes any of the current racial justice horseshit…”

              So, you are saying that Brandy is a mendacious tool…

              Yep, we got that.

              1. More of an afrodisiac, actually.

            2. I’ve always said that if the big tech companies really cared about the African American community, they’d set up coding camps in the inner city instead of importing so much of their work force.

            3. I think their attitude is exemplified by what that Antifa said after he got busted for punting an unconscious man’s head.

              “I was just kicking a racist!” he whined as he was being hauled off.

              Never mind he knew NOTHING about the victim, it was the fact that he actually believes that kicking the head of someone he deems “bad” is somehow worse than a racist kicking the head of someone HE deems “bad”. It’s. the. same. fucking. thing.

              And we’ve got a whole generation of idiots that need to be deprogrammed or epsteined. If not, they’re going to have to readjust their conception of what “living in a dystopian hellhole” really looks like.

          4. Yeah, Ron Paul didn’t write them. Rothbard and Rockwell did. But Ron Paul never disowned the overt racist shit that was in them.

            I thought you guys were for “free minds” What the fuck happened??? Is freedom no longer your top tenet???

            1. Or, maybe it never really was…

            2. Well jeez, not WRONGTHINK!

          5. Not to mention the ‘cultural marxism’ post a few years back.

            Which, again, could just be that his social media is run by handlers, but doesn’t look good to keep hiring racists and anti-semites to speak for you.

            1. You’re listening too hard for dog whistles.

              1. Then he should stop employing them.

                1. Then he should stop employing them.

                  You'll just find some other phrase to complain about.

            2. Not to mention the ‘cultural marxism’ post a few years back.

              Yeah - sounds he's up to speed on current events. You aren't.

              1. I’m well aware that those who push culture war narratives are ignorant fucks. You don’t need to reinforce it.

                1. A quibble about a small part of your comment there.

                  The “I’m well aware…” part seems exaggerated at best, wholly inaccurate at worst.

          6. Never read the newsletters, though he claimed a lack of oversight (not a great admission for a presidential candidate). I did read most of Ron Paul’s speeches and columns for the past 20 years though. Not one racist word, just a very inclusive message of liberty for all.

          7. He did disown them.

            And Rothbard and Rockwell didn’t write them.

            Just another smear by leftists calling themselves libertarians.

          8. Ron Paul never disowned the overt racist shit that was in them.

            Stupid lie is stupid. He did exactly that many times during his last Presidential campaign.

            -jcr

            1. Okay, but Trump never disavowed white supremacy!!!

        2. The ChiComms KNOW BEST how to control the internet! NO Section 230 over there! NO internet freedoms for private web-site owners, over there! ChiComm Government Almighty Knows Best!

          So Der JesseBahnFuhrer wants to do things the ChiComm way! We can NOT let the ChiComms get the jump on us here, in having Wise Government Almighty FORCE us to see the RIGHT way to use the internet!

          1. Sarcasmic, you are still terrible at all thought regarding libertarianism. Your 2 saved quotes from Bastiat don’t fool anybody.

          2. Yeah, it’s not really a coincidence that Google has been helping China do the exact things you’re complaining about.

            You really think the government would release something like the internet and not keep full tabs on it, to the point of using it for nefarious purposes, and employing tech megacorps to assist them in the effort?

        3. If racism means failure to raise a fist in solidarity with people who are burning innocent people’s businesses and homes, then I sure hope I’ll always suffer its taint.

        4. Well he did.

          Outside of ‘End the Fed’ he’s perfectly accepting of restricting liberties at the state and local levels. Especially culture war bullshit. His talks about protecting culture and traditions are garbage that has no meaning in libertarianism.

          1. Outside of ‘End the Fed’ he’s perfectly accepting of restricting liberties at the state and local levels. Especially culture war bullshit. His talks about protecting culture and traditions are garbage that has no meaning in libertarianism.

            Yeah but that's bullshit. Of course it has meaning in libertarianism. Example. Libertarians like freedom and "liberty." Imagine libertarians (freedom loving peoples) desire autonomy and self governance. They achieve it. Then imagine a large faction of left wingers immigrated en masse. Imagine insane numbers of them, where the local libertarians could no longer compete with them in democracy and thus were voted out. They took over the schools. They took over the entertainment industry. They took over the governing bodies. Now libertarians are like, we need to make some compromises so we can get elected. Once elected, they are like - we need to close to border to preserve libertarianism or it will be gone. Now fast forward a hundred years, and those libertarians are now fucking called republicans. The commie bastards that pulled them left are the democrats. So of course your philosophies and traditions are important to you. You are a libertarian right? Do you want to be a democrat socialist? No? A republican? No. You want to be a libertarian. Thus your culture and traditions (of libertarianism) is important to you.

            1. I assume there’s a point here, but I can’t get past how in your example libertarianism causes the death libertarianism.

              Yet somehow there’s a culture or tradition to protect here…?

              1. The point, goofy, is that your enemies outnumber you and are now gleefully using your own principles as the rope they plan to hang you with.

                1. Sure, but that subverts his point saying culture and tradition is important to libertarianism.

                  1. Libertarianism is a label that embodies an ideal. Yes???? That ideal is embodied in the culture and tradition that you desire to protect. Otherwise - why call yourself a libertarian? Is a libertarian the absence of all ideals? No it is not. You have an idea, that you are selling, that you want others to embrace. That is the culture and tradition that you want to protect.

              2. I assume there’s a point here…

                Yeah there was. And you purposely avoided it.

                You already revealed that you don't like restricting liberties, and implied you are a libertarian. That means as a libertarian, you have a set of "values" that embody being a libertarian. Otherwise why call yourself a libertarian?? And those values are part of your culture and traditions. And if you didn't want libertarianism preserved/protected - why bother calling yourself a libertarian? Instead call yourself a nobody that will believe in anything pushed on you.

          2. You mean the liberty to end a human life if it’s inconvenient?

            1. Well his culture war bullshit does tend to follow a theological theme, but no not abortions. Let’s take a look at his comments after Lawrence v. Texas.

              “Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy”. Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states’ rights – rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards”

              Let’s parse everything wrong here.
              A: Constitutional =/= Libertarian.
              B: 9th amendments deals with rights of the people not the state. In fact it’s the ninth amendment that would disagree with his view on private sexual conduct not being protected.
              C: What kind of libertarian would argue that any level of government has the right to restrict the private sexual acts of consensual adults? Not a very good one.

              1. You are just stupid enough to think it is somehow “Libertarian” to believe the Constitution says things it clearly doesnt, and doesnt say things it clearly does.

              2. He served in congress, so his level of “statist” on the spectrum is obviously high. That’s why he’s cool with the state restricting things, just like I’m sure many Libertarians here are accepting of legislation or government actions they agree with that restricts others freedom, like border enforcement, eminent domain, driver’s licenses, “safety” regulations and labor laws, to name only a few. He’s a capital-L-Libertarian.

            2. You mean the horrific injustice of Dolal Idd being murdered by cops, as opposed to the “gotta crack a few old folks to make a revolution” death of David Dorn??

              It’s all these “fine points” and “distinctions” that take all the fun out of killing other people, innit?

              BTW: SAY HIS FUCKING NAME!!

      2. No one feels sorry for Ron Paul…

  2. Needless to say, the social media giant’s decision to lock Paul’s page is not censorship.

    *fucking facepalm*

    1. Needless to say, the forced shuttering of daily newspaper The People’s Voice is not censorship. The staff responsible for the publication are currently handing out copies on streetcorners as long as they stay away from the prying eyes of the Gestapo.

      1. Wait, do you think that Facebook is literally the government?

        1. Censorship is censorship, regardless of who’s doing it. Unless the dictionary changed that definition in the last 48 hours.

          1. You need to get your dictionary fixed. Various definitions of “censorship” invariably include the word “official”. Facebook is not an official preventing any speech. They are a private organization setting rules for their private platform. Ron Paul still has multiple other avenues of expression. Facebook was only his reposts of what he posted on his own site.

            Okay, I think Facebook is being dicks in this regard. But being a dick is not the same as censorship.

            1. Censorship: “n. The act, process, or practice of censoring.”

              Censor:
              “To review in order to remove objectionable content from correspondence or public media, either by legal criteria or with discretionary powers”
              “To remove objectionable content
              from”

              You’re wrong.

            2. rationalization is still rationalization even if the government isn’t the one doing it.

            3. No, you need to stop rationalizing your authoritarian impulses.

            4. Merriam Webster”
              “the institution, system, or practice of censoring”

              Cambridge English:
              the act of censoring books, movies, etc.:

              Dictionary.com:
              the act or practice of censoring.

              I can look up more if you want. Or you can.

            5. You’re wrong.

            6. Your continued ignorance is noted.

            7. You need to get your dictionary fixed. Various definitions of “censorship” invariably include the word “official”.

              Various of them do, but not all. My Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary defines “censor” as “to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable.” Nothing about officials in it.

            8. Brandy goes full Orwell.

              Never change.

            9. You need to get your dictionary fixed. Various definitions of “censorship” invariably include the word “official”…

              So wikipedia says: "Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient." Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions, and other controlling bodies."

              Do you have a different definition of it?

            10. Sorry man, but:

              “Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or “inconvenient.”[2][3][4] Censorship can be conducted by governments,[5] private institutions, and other controlling bodies.”

              If I suppress your speech, Brandybuck, even just as some nobody, I’m still censoring you.

            11. No, you are a dumbass

            12. Holeee fucking shit. How far down into the derptic tank does this comment section have to go??

              If your fucking NEIGHBOR follows you around and shouts you down every time you try to discuss politics he doesn’t like…is that okay because it’s not the government??

              If AT&T had decided they didn’t like things you said, and limited your phone service to only certain relatives and merchants…is that okay because it’s not the government?

              If the rich people who control the internet (and don’t kid yourself about this) decide certain things are “too dangerous” to say (as opposed to the things other people say that lead to the exact same consequences) and shut down your ability to speak…is that okay because it’s not the government.

              In each and every case, it is CENSORSHIP. Not constitutionally forbidden government censorship, but still censorship.

              If you try to justify it, you’re a fucking statist asshole, rooting on people the government has contracted with to get around those pesky darn Constitutional restrictions.

              Fuuuuuuck.

          2. Freedom of association is a bitch like that.

            1. Most libertarians, especially the ones working for reason.com, don't believe on has a right to the freedom to associate.

              1. Evidence?

          3. Government and privately owned business. Grow up. When you own it, you do what YOU want to do with YOUR company.

            1. That’s seems like a pretty broad statement, even for someone who is all grown up. Would you be modifying your opinion if FB was deleting the account of all the brown people? How about if all the hotels and restaurants did the same thing? Cuz brown people can get sleep in the car and buy food somewhere else, right?

              It’s not an anti-capitalist position to say that particularly companies with enormous power should not be allowed to use their power in any way and against whomever they want.

              1. Libertarians believe a business should not have to serve brown people if it doesn’t want to. Period. The business’ right to associate and to not be slaves trumps all other concerns.

            2. Unless you’re employing someone who used “the n-word” back when they were a teenager, Or if you don’t already have your Black History Monthy display out (as Target does-once burned down, twice as obsequious). OR if you don’t black out your store logo on Twitter when you are told to. OR if your piece of created media doesn’t include properly diverse content even if it’s about 9th century Denmark.

              And on. And on. But that’s okay, because it’s rightthink and as FREE BUSINESS OWNERS they can act as they want…and the constraints put on that action are none of our business as long as it’s not the government. Right??

              You live in a simple world. Asshole.

          4. Yes. I received a notice from Facebook’s fact checkers that I had published false information. The notice didn’t refer me to a particular post. The only one I can think of that might be a candidate is one I made on the date of the Capitol invasion. I stated, approximately, that “whether the invaders were Trump supporters or not depended upon facts not yet in evidence. For the sake of a discussion, let’s assume that they were Trump supporters.”

            What is false about that? How am I to use that as a guide to what I should say in the future in order to be truthful?

        2. No you fucking numpty.

        3. *facepalm*

          You just won the 900 yard dash to miss the point.

    2. The first part is true. It’s needless to say because it’s false.

    3. Get $192 hourly from Google!…Yes this is Authentic since I just got my first payout of $24413 and this was just of a single week… GHdas I have also bought my Range Rover Velar right after this payout…It is really cool job I have ever had and you won’t forgive yourself if you do not check it…….Home Profit System

  3. Yep. I got locked out of FB for violating “community standards,” as well. Somehow, a thirteen-second video of an eight-week-old kitten was a violation. Seriously.

    1. Cats are dangerous and they are plotting the demise of the human race as soon as they can teach the dogs to feed them

      1. Look what cats did in Egypt…

        1. Battle of Pelusium.

      2. Cats refuse to do what they are told. Clearly inciting insurrection.

    2. I had a temporary suspension handed down to me for a comment I made on one of Reason’s Facebook posts pre-election.

      My offense?

      Asking why Kamala withheld evidence which would have exonerated an innocent man.

    3. Look man, I knew a guy who had a cat. And he died! You were obviously “glorifying violence”.

    4. ERIC BOEHM BENDS OVER BACKWARD TO AVOID CALLING IT LIKE IT IS. This is nothing new at Reason (sic). How much “bending over backward” does Eric (the writer) have to do to constantly remind us of the excuses that can be trotted out to defend the one-sided conversation-snuffers at FaceFart? Yes, keep on taking us back to remedial libertarianism. We all know it’s a private company. But would it really hurt to just come out and say that FaceFart and Twitter and Google and Amazon are fascist control freaks that want to shut down conversation because they cannot win an argument and must rely on “critical theory” to pretend that we’re all operating in our own “cone of silence” because “my truth isn’t your truth.” Cut with the excuses. Let’s freely demonize these corporate cronies and drop them. Use Brave as your browser, DuckDuckGo for searching, MeWe and Gab for social media, and Parler (when resurrected from the fascist attack) for quick jabs.

    5. They know the Army of White Supremacists has moved on from “dog whistles” to “cute kiteen whistles”. The ADL is firmly convinced this is true.*

      *-not yet, but I have no doubt 4chan could troll them into sending out a warning about cute kitten videos being some kind of horrific code for 4 billion white supremacists lurking behind every (very crowded) corner. SPLC, ADL and now the ACLU, just grifters now. (though the SPLC never pretended to be anything else)

  4. Bake that cake, Facebook!

    1. Full on fun house mirror version of reality.

      This is free association, fake libertarians. This is an easy one. There isn’t a libertarian argument for forcing facebook to host anyone. Flat out none.

      But why would we be surprised? We have all seen these traitorous monkeys choose a man over the constitution now.

      1. stop talking to yourself and then fuck off sarcasmic

        1. Fake “ sarcasmic” here again with a leading hairspace. “ sarcasmic” is a liar and a worshipper of the Evil One, “Libertarians for ID theft”!

          “sarcasmic” WITHOUT a leading hairspace? Now, HE is a truth-teller! Neo-NAZIs and Evil-One-worshippers and liars? They ALL hate truth-tellers (real libertarians) like the REAL “sarcasmic” and I, Jeff, Chipper, Echospinner, White Knight, n00bdragon, Brandybuck, etc.

          1. fuck off sarcasmic

          2. Sarcasmic, remember when you learned how to use the white space to clone other people like my name? Now you are using your protected name created in those tests to pretend it isn’t you.

            How cute.

            1. Tulpa can fool Der JesseBahnFuhrer now! But Der JesseBahnFuhrer willingly believes whatever lies that Der JesseBahnFuhrer WANTS to believe, so… No surprises here!

              1. Aww sarc you’re still mad I turned you down.

                But lolol that wasn’t me.

                Hey remember when you told us you eat shit? We do!

                1. I remember that. So gross.

                  1. C’mon guys, open-minded, remember? No kink-shaming.

                    I mean, first racist against coprophiliacs, where does it all end? Racist against cannibals or some narrow-minded Puritanical shit?

                2. I do too. It’s probably why his wife dumped him.

                  1. He was eager about the “dumped” part at first, though.

      2. I like how if you just completely ignore the political collaboration between SV and the DNC you don’t ever have to pretend something bad is happening.

        I like how as long as you ignore the SV collusion between multiple titans of their markets, you don’t ever have to pretend something bad is happening.

        I like how you can ignore actual journalism like Glen Greenwald did and realize nobody arrested for Jan 6th was even on Parler, yet it was used as the justification for ending their contracts on AWS.

        Yeap, you’re a good “soldier” SV.

        1. If you weren’t sure that DOL is really a dishonest simpleton, here he clears up any doubt.

          Lalala can’t hear you lalala private company!

        2. Here is Jesse, exposing how fake of a libertarian he is.

          Hell, he’s admitting he doesn’t even understand the 1a.

          And I have offered him many times to prove who I am. The only reason and way he is still accusing me of stolen valor is cowardice.

          Watch jesse disappear from this comment thread:

          Jesse, I will prove who I am to a neutral 3rd (I nominate soldiermedic). If I fail prove that I am not stealing valor, I will leave this message board forever, and wire you $10,000.

          If you pass up this chance for $10,000, we should all assume you are a bad faith troll, a libeler, and most of all, an unamerican, traitorous coward.

      3. There isn’t a libertarian argument for forcing facebook to host anyone. Flat out none.

        But why would we be surprised? We have all seen these traitorous monkeys

        It’s revealing left wingers can only support their beliefs and criticisms with lies since no one is arguing Facebook should be forced.

        Also amusing is how they conclude people are traitors. Luckily tomorrow they’ll criticize other people as extreme.

        1. Violates terms of use. Plain and simple. No freedom to use something you don’t own. All this other stuff is obfuscation of the truth that Amazon and Facebook can deny service to anyone. Just like the local bartender can throw you out of the joint for raising a ruckus in the bar.

          1. No one is arguing that they can or cannot do this stuff. They are arguing that they SHOULDN’T do this stuff- that as titans of their industry, their efforts to stifle the free flow of information is a bad thing. And it is. A very bad thing.

            1. They are though.

              Here is Jesse claiming this is a 1a issue. He even invokes the founders.

              https://reason.com/podcast/2021/01/11/the-gops-authoritarian-sickness/#comment-8693468

          2. I love it when idiots start parroting talking points they heard from their favorite pundit like their actually informing the world with case law. BTW, you’re actually quite wrong. Imagine the money that would be changing hands if any company starts tossing all their brown-skinned customers. See, your handlers are just giving you baby-bites because that’s what they know you can handle and will repeat everywhere you go. Any more complicated, and you’d just start copying it wrong.

            But that’s mostly aside from the actual point. What you’re failing to understand is that people aren’t really debating whether blocking Ron Paul is legal, and he isn’t either. He’s just making it known and letting people decide for themselves whether it’s a shit-move.

      4. But there is a libertarian argument for calling out bad behavior and pointing out that even though it isn’t government censorship, that viewpoint discrimination even by a private company is wrong. Especially if the aforementioned company continues to maintain that they welcome viewpoint diversity. If FB came out and stated they only wanted progressive voices, I wouldn’t be so critical. Since they argue they welcome viewpoint diversity while increasingly they appear to be opposed to it, I can call them out as hypocrites and partisans.

        1. You won’t be calling them out on their platform, however. There are consequences for being a global arsehole. Losing access to Twitter is one of them. Losing MONEY – big money – is another consequence of seditious behaviors and inciting to riot. Siding with a madman has a cost too – like not being re-elected, being investigated for criminal conduct, failure to uphold oath of office, and removal from Congress.

          1. Since I have done of those things, how does that apply to my flaking them out and defending the principles of free speech, which isn’t only limited to government in my opinion?

      5. “This is an easy one. There isn’t a libertarian argument for forcing facebook to host anyone. Flat out none.”

        I am not talking about force. But I am talking about how terrible it is that companies who dominate industries are using that power to stifle free expression.

        It is terrible. And if you don’t think so, then I really question how far your liberal impulses go.

        1. “”But I am talking about how terrible it is that companies who dominate industries are using that power to stifle free expression. “”

          A couple of decades ago liberals would have been opposed to this.

        2. Admit it: if it was a democrat you would be sharpening knives for the public disembowelment, drawing, and quartering. AMIRIGHT?

          1. Proof?

          2. Thanks for admitting that the Democrats have fully given in to their authoritarian impulses.

          3. Not myself. I don’t approve of most speech, but it needs to remain free in any public arena where the actual purpose of the arena is free speech. I’m happy to engage and debate anyone, as would be the case for most folks who don’t start with an ideological conclusion and work backwards to embrace cognitive dissonance.

            Ironically though, a projection like yours strongly suggests what you view as legitimate, given the ability to act.

          4. Right? You’re projecting, clear as fuck.

            But are you right? No.

            We’ve ALREADY HAD worse riots than the “Capitol Hill Coup”, and nobody here called for disemboweling. Of course, we didn’t bray hysterically and hyperbolically about those events either.

            And there we get to the real crux. Not deplatforming, but the actual laws and the actual judicial system being very unevenly brought down on people, based on a political distinction. 140 nights of violent riots in Portland? Arson, looting, murder associated with outrage over the police shooting of criminals? Slaps on the wrist all around, media downplaying or minimizing coverage, no problems.

            Compare to the hysteria, the ridiculous language even in your short, stupid post, the mustering of the National Guard…no, deplatforming is the least of our problems, and the coup was not at the Capitol building.

            The only point you are making is that you hate the people getting shit on now. And it isn’t a fucking moral point, so fuck the fuck right off.

      6. I’m not for forcing them to host anyone. I am for calling them out when they de-platform someone who has done nothing objectionable. As a libertarian, I would encourage everyone who values liberty to quit any platform that reveals themselves to be hostile to free expression.

        1. ↑This
          I’m done with FB, kinda like the NFL.

      7. I think you’re conflating the lack of a perfectly libertarian solution to the obvious collusion between Big Government and Big Tech with the notion that libertarians shouldn’t see this as a problem.

        The whole free minds and free markets thing isn’t going to get very far in a Puritan village of fear, purges, and call out culture backed by a Mussolini-sequel model corporatism.

        1. *Mussolini-esque

    2. So when do we get to personally harass Zuckerborg with a constant stream of frivolous lawsuits for years?

      1. Only after you private-property-grabbing power-pigs… Collectivist socialists by another name… Manage to tear down Section 230! Thank Government Almighty for ONCE limiting its own powers, by passing Section 230! DOWN with the power piggy ways of enemies of Section 230!

        1. fuck off sarcasmic

        2. When the government realized how efficacious a censoring tool these huge platforms could be, I’m sure they were eager to set them free of restraint. Probably said “This is great, and the libertarians and lefties will be cheering them on!”

          And so it has come to pass.

      2. Like you are going to stop using FB. Psh…

        1. I have NEVER used FB! I’m not a narcissist, and I know how to use email and the telephone. So FB owns not ONE cell in my body, nor one neuron in my brain! Or one iota of data about me, that I gave them!

          1. I have never used Facebook either.

            But they have lots of data about you and me. Web pages link to Facebook all the time.

  5. Well, it is censorship. It’s just not government censorship.

    1. I was about to type the same thing. The damn media people are always telling us this is NOT CENSORSHIP. But look at the definition of censorship.

      It’s correct to say that nobody’s rights have been violated. It’s correct to say that no crime has been committed.

      But Facebook and Twitter, et. al., are engaging in censorship. Call it what it is.

    2. Exactly. It seems that everyone at Reason under the age of 42 thinks that the word “censorship” must apply to conduct which is actionable under the first amendment.

      1. It appears to be the prevailing wisdom yes.

      2. I won’t allow you to post on my private WordPress blog. Does that make me a censor? No, no it does not.

        1. Actually, yes it does.

        2. Also, the minister in the church down the road will NOT allow me to shove him off of his podium, and take over his church! He, too, is CENSORING me! … But the power pigs on this forum? They have NO respect for private property, religious freedom, or, frankly, for anyone to do much of ANYTHING that THEY don’t like! Welcome to the dictatorshit, Comrade!

          1. fuck off sarcasmic

          2. Explain how a church pulpit occupied by a minister, is the same thing as your personal social media account, because your analogy feels retarded.

        3. If you only allow certain types of content and remove (censor) others, then that is what you are doing.

          Sometimes censorship is benign, but we tend to call it “moderation”, but this is more a distinction of connotation than actual meaning. “Walgreens deals in drugs”, versus “Walgreens vends pharmeceutical products”.

        4. This isn’t some esoteric argument. Words have definition. Look at the definition and you can answer your own question.

        5. Are those rationalizing all this crap still not understanding what a platform is?

        6. Let me put it more clearly…

          Can a bank refuse to do business with a religion because they are a private company? Especially one funded and supported by the government?

        7. If you also wouldn’t allow him to use WordPress at all, would that be exactly the same thing? Or is your analogy somehow…what’s the word? Flawed? Inequivalent? No, “STUPID”. That’s the word.

      3. censorship
        [ˈsensərSHip]
        NOUN
        the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.

        I would say that the hyperbolic lies Trump would post between now and Jan 20th [and thereafter for that matter] would be a threat to security for the POTUS elect, his family, friends and administration considering the events of January 6, 2021. Politically unacceptable is a forgone conclusion.

        1. Cripes!
          You’re batshit crazy, if you’re going not being sarcastic.

    3. It’s arguably worse that the populace no longer values Free Speech. If the Constitution was drafted from scratch today, there would be no First Amendment.

      1. Sad but true. The real check on businesses acting in this manner is a common ethical framework held by the general populace that says ‘this is wrong.’

        1. Bingo. But to many libertarians on here seem to be offended by people even saying this type of behavior is wrong.

          1. I for one am not offended when people say “XYZ is wrong”. I take exception to those who clearly seem to believe that ALL good things should be MANDATED by Government Almighty, and that ALL bad things should be PROHIBITED by Government Almighty! Such authoritarianism leaves us with ZERO flexibility, free agency, or FREEDOM! UP with individual freedom, and DOWN with enemies of individual freedom!

            1. Bro you eat shit go away.

            2. Which isn’t what many of us are saying. And even some who are saying that have very valid points.

        2. That framework is required for a libertarian society in general. Not enough people appreciate that.

      2. To be fair, this is nothing new. In the 90’s Blockbuster Video was notorious for trying to force their “Family Friendly” morals on the media market by limiting which movies they would rent. This led to the infamous “Blockbuster Cut” of movies, where film houses would release special cuts of their movies to the stores.

        Prior to that, there were often blacklists of Jews or Homosexuals, and against books that were troubling.

        The big difference today is that it is the Left that has become filled with intolerant religious zealots intent on protecting our precious gray matter from dirty thoughts.

        1. “”The big difference today is that it is the Left that has become filled with intolerant religious zealots intent on protecting our precious gray matter from dirty thoughts.””

          They have become the new religious right.

        2. And all blockbuster did is create a nice niche market for more open minded operators.

          And there were also the stores that specialized in art flicks, foreign movies, and all sorts of non offensive but non mainstream video.

          What blockbuster never did is try to suppress their ability to source those videos or to make them available.

        3. There was the Parents Music Resource Committee, hwroes of SQRSLY, who were falsely accused of censorship, because none of them were in government, just their husbands

      3. Trump is free to buy a soapbox and pontificate from a public venue of his choosing.

        1. For now and this impacts far more than Trump nd his supporters. And even if it was limited to his supporters libertarians should feel some discomfort with censoring, even by private companies, of differing views.

        2. And this will not stop just with banning Trump and his supporters because Ron Paul isn’t a full throated Trump supporter and neither was Walk Away on Facebook.

        3. No he isn’t, you lying fuck. Or are you too stupid to know how this works?

          https://medium.com/unsafe-space/welcome-to-the-digital-reign-of-terror-b0c7e8d7c3a5

      4. or Second. or Fourth. or Ninth. or Tenth.

      5. What if we didn’t let Mick 2 have a say?

        Better?

    4. First libertarian thing you’ve ever said. Congrats.

    5. Meh, it’s not not government censorship. Facebook is doing this under threat. They fear that government will come for them and so they purge.

      Saying the government isn’t involved at all isn’t exactly true now is it? So does threatening (either implicitly or explicitly) people with govt force to get them to act against people the govt can’t act against itself is… what?

      Still wrong no?

      1. This is true. This is also what the Right gets for expressing the very vocal desire to gut Section 230. You want social media companies to be legally liable for anything any of their users posts? Then this is what you get.

        1. “This is also what the Right gets”

          Oh ok it’s about owning the cons sorry I thought we were libertarian my bad.

          1. Not owning anyone. Just pointing out the irony.

        2. “This is also what the Right gets”

          And you also think Jews deserved their righteous gassings.

          1. Whoa, Ariel, you know, now, exactly what people think, even though they never said anything like the thoughts that you have detected? Where did you get your tin-foil hat? What are the Lizard Men charging for such hats, these days?

            1. I guess you dont like it when people talk about how you were ok with gassing Jews.

              Good. Squirm.

            2. Brandybuck said they deserve. Victim blamers blame victims dummy.

            3. Lizards don’t scare me because Lizards don’t have thumbs.

              1. Sad to say, from what I am told, lizards from “The Planet of the Lizards” don’t even NEED thumbs! They have MIND CONTROL instead! (They FORCED people to vote AGAINST Trump, despite their most fervent wishes!)

          2. Well, they DID present a threat to the security of Reich, according to the Reich.

            And that’s A-OK with Mick!!

        3. “This is also what the Right gets for expressing the very vocal desire to gut Section 230.”

          Your Liberal Blinders are on a little tight there Brandy.

          The first calls to re-do Section 230 (which I oppose) were in 2018 after Alex Jones was deplatformed, along with several other people on the right. This was 2 years after Trump won, and liberals began handwringing about facebook failing to stop fake news and other bad information.

          The idea that this started with the Right is ludicrous. This started in 2016 as the leaders sat on a town hall (which I watched at the time) and apologized for not more actively “pointing users to the type of content that would allow them to make the right decisions”. As soon as Trump beat the left at its Twitter game, they were calling for moderation on Twitter.

          Talk of 230 reform had not begun yet, when the big tech companies were hauled before congress to explain how they could let misinformation spread. It was only 2 years later when the companies- responding to this pressure- began actively banning people, that conservatives really began the 230 reform talk.

          1. It may not have started with the Right, but the Right certainly glommed onto it.

            Thank Gawd for Ajit Pai who sat this one out so he wouldn’t be on watch when it happened.

      2. Saying the government isn’t involved at all isn’t exactly true now is it?

        If your claim is that Facebook is doing this under government orders, then you’re going to have to provide some proof for that claim.

        1. “If your claim is that Facebook is doing this under government orders”

          It CLEARLY isn’t my claim and your straw man is silly.

          Read. It’s right in front of you.

          1. Well, I’m glad you’ve clarified your claim.
            Oh wait no you really haven’t, but whatevs.

            1. It’s clear to everyone but you. Brandybuck understood it.

            2. The claim is perfectly clear. Direct action is not the only method a governement can use to threaten and cajole private actors. Direct action IS however, the only thing you recognize as actual government action, making you hlariously incapable of anything like intelligent discourse on the subject.

              This is basic Libertarianism which explains why you don’t get it.

              1. “Basic Libertarianism” is imagining government conspiracies all over the place?

          2. Jeff is desperate. His world view is realigning before his eyes and he doesn’t have the intellect to navigate it.

            So when someone types

            Facebook is doing this under threat. They fear that government will come for them and so they purge.</i-)

            His worls view is shattered. He stupidly thinks explicit threats are the only kind of action a government actor can use to force behavior.

            1. If it is not outright coercion, then how does anyone know that the decision that a person makes is not that person’s free decision, and instead one made under duress? To assume that these decisions are the result of “implicit threats” is just another type of conspiratorial-type thinking. “They’re in on it!” Actually, it is more of a way to rationalize depriving Google/Facebook/Amazon of their rights in a manner that comports very loosely with libertarian thought, by pretending “oh it’s really the government doing it anyway”.

        2. Oh sweet summer ‘tard. You think there’s an invoice with “services rendered, payment in favorable legislative treatment pending”.

          If everyone was like you, they wouldn’t have to bother to propagandize at all!

      3. It goes with the shift of power & is a point well taken. If you control a mega-corporation it is not good policy to take a stand in opposition to the current administration. Especially the majority held party.

        It is a business decision, made following the finalization of Biden’s win by the VP’s formal announcement, & the additional win of the GA Democrats elected to the Senate. Zuck is a shrewd businessman. Amazon isn’t a mega player because they are politically obtuse. Twitter wants to survive. Because they can.

      4. Fascism

    6. If the phone company, also a private entity, decide it didn’t like what you were saying in phone calls and ended your phone service how would you feel then? Some email providers are already doing this as well yet society now depend on social networks and email service. In fact during Covid I can only deal with our local government online. this is the Purge of wrong think

      1. Well, I wouldn’t feel good about it. But I’ve been told that my feelings don’t matter, so I guess that is immaterial.

        If you want to make the case that email and social media should be treated like a public utility, you’re free to do so, but this is IMO a rather strange place to make that case.

        1. “But I’ve been told that my feelings don’t matter”

          Oh god you shit up threads hating on the GOP because they hurt your feelings. I can’t believe you actually admitted that.

    7. Golf claps for Jeff!

  6. No articles about Big Tech refusing to host right wing sites/platforms? Effecting banning them?

    Instead just a mild article about Ron Paul.

    1. Boehm is usually in the writing of markets and economies. He seems to be staying far away from collusion and obvious anti-competitive market practices… just like he does with China.

    2. Last I checked, Breitbart, Federalist, Redstate, and a bunch of other right-wing sites are still up.

      1. That just shows that Breitbart, Federalist, Redstate, and a bunch of other right-wing sites are all part of the Insider Conspiracy to make Biden, and thus by extension, Hugo Chavez (aka George Soros) the Emperor of the Known Universe!

      2. You said that about Parler too until yesterday.

        You know what’s happening is wrong. Your Quisling-like sycophancy isn’t the answer, but you can’t admit you’ve been wrong about this.

        1. Wrong in what way?

          And if what is going on now is wrong in your view, what would be the right course of action?

          1. I honestly think Jeff DOESN’T think a coordinated attempt to purge political enemies is wrong. He has basically said as much.

            1. I would guess he does think it’s wrong. He just doesn’t want to admit to himself yet that it is coordinated.

          2. what would be the right course of action?

            You could stop covering for people attempting purges as a start.

            1. LOL sure, a “purge”, when there’s like a zillion right-wing websites, right-wing Twitter users, right-wing Facebook groups, and right-wing conversations going on right now. Pretty crappy purge there!

              Can we stop hyperventilating about what happened to Parler and discuss what happened rationally?

              1. you mean 4 million accounts getting vaporized?

                1. To what specifically are you referring?

              2. “Libertarians don’t engage very well when it comes to the issue of government-backed and funded industrial monopolies.”

                1. Can we stop it with the conspiratorial thinking?

                  Can you give any concrete evidence that what AWS and Google did with respect to Parler was at the direction of some political entity? If not, then it’s just a conspiracy theory.

                  1. Hey fuckwad, it’s not conspiratorial to point out that Big Tech has been in bed with the government for about 20 years now. It’s all open source.

                    Can you give any concrete evidence that what AWS and Google did with respect to Parler was at the direction of some political entity?

                    Considering these firms are fully in bed with the Democratic party now, your obtuseness is noted.

                    1. He wants you to produce an invoice with “Services rendered, preferential legislative treatment to be delivered per agreement” on it. Signed by who the fuck knows what he expects such proof to be.

                      He might be shocked to learn that these people are very good at what they do, and very devious. Don’t tell him.

    3. The new “Kinder, Gentler, Ball-less Reason”.

      It’s why I cancelled, de-registered and stopped donating to the LP. Fuck these people. Enjoy your DC cocktail parties you horrible shits.

  7. Reason is almost to a libertarian like argument.

    1. Needless to say, the social media giant’s decision to lock Paul’s page is not censorship.

      Yes it is. Censorship has no requirement it be performed by the government. That would be Government Censorship.

    2. Maybe if they go after Rand or Amash next, they’ll make it all the way there.

  8. Whew! Thank god he can’t access Facebook, amirite?

    Safety secured!

      1. Anyone who thinks Facebook isn’t entangled with the state missed the Snowden debacle.

      2. Parl… Never mind. Forget about that. Yes build you own social media site. Because nothing will stop you.

      3. With angel investment from CIA-connected proxies.

      4. Did you hit your head? Take brain-dissolving pills? Or have you always been stupid and I just wasn’t paying attention?

        https://medium.com/unsafe-space/welcome-to-the-digital-reign-of-terror-b0c7e8d7c3a5

    1. As I said in another thread, we need to amend the 1st Amendment to read:
      “A completely unregulated social media platform being necessary to the security of the ego, Congress shall make a law to guarantee an uncensored social media account for every American citizen.”

      1. Nobody thought it was clever or funny there either.

        1. Why do you always lie, Jesse. You didn’t read it in the other thread, because you sure would have responded to it, and you didn’t.

          1. fuck off sarcasmic

      2. I would merely suggest that pointless Facebook account freezing is pointless. Facebook could try doing something useful. I wouldn’t use government to force them to.

      3. Nobody is saying that, idiot.

        Why can’t you just admit a simple fact? Facebook and Twitter are practicing censorship. Say it. It won’t hurt.

        1. It’s not censorship. It’s violation of terms of use. Trump is a repeat offender without question and Paul is a serial whiner. They don’t have to publish their rubbish if they violate their terms.

          I am thrilled with the one consolation in the wake of carnage, the peace that we don’t have to read/hear what “Trump lied about/who he insulted or fired/which complete Bozo he is pardoning or giving a Medal of Freedom to” today on Twitter.

          1. Words have meanings whether you know what they are or not.

          2. “I am thrilled……. that we don’t have to read/…..”

            So…… you would’ve “had to” read/hear these things if you hadn’t been saved by a ban of them?

            Haha. Wow. You suck, dude.

    2. Certain NGO’s that are a requirement to work with in order to get certain things done for the government are only accessible through social networks. weird how an NGO can have enough power tobe required to get certain things done and weird that they are only on social networks. Almost like it was planned that way for the coming new socially correct world order

      1. Banning a person’s facebook account is not, IMO, that big a deal EXCEPT that FB is increasingly becoming connected to other services people user or need. Occulus, for example, requires a facebook account to download games so people are one wrong post or proximity to a protest away from losing access to things they legally purchased.

        The interconnectivity of Big Tech with each other is a problem libertarians have not figured out how to solve for in a way that works in the real world.

        1. Libertarians don’t engage very well when it comes to the issue of government-backed and funded industrial monopolies.

    3. The coup might’ve succeeded if they hadn’t!!

      Those selfie-taking Grandmas might have busted into the Government Control Room and grabbed the LEVERS OF POWER!

      Then Trump would rule!! REEEEEE!!

      My hatred for these people is being steadily increased by their comments and actions.

  9. Indeed, both posts are still available on Paul’s Facebook page. Without more information from Facebook, we can only speculate about why Paul has apparently been locked out of his page.

    Well, I hope you don’t sit by the phone too long and waste your afternoon hoping for an answer. It is known that all of the tech companies refuse to explicitly tell anyone why they’re banned from the platform, beyond the circular reasoning that they violated the terms of service. I mean, I’m only saying this because you write this like you haven’t been paying attention to this issue for very long.

    1. Years ago On Scientific American web site i commented that tow of their climate change articles contradicted each other . I was banned and they gave me the same line. ” you violated our rules” and when i asked what rule I violated they said “they will not discuss it any further”. It was a proud day for me to be banned but whats happening now is different

      1. That was a precursor.

      2. And it wasn’t any different. You didn’t behave badly, you pointed out that they were lying, and they couldn’t have that, or you might have undermined their reputation.

        There’s a reason so many media web sites have cut off their comment sections, and it’s not because of spam.

      3. Scientific American is an embarrassment to science now.
        Today’s headlines:

        “Militia Experts Warns Trump’s Capitol Insurrections Could Try Again” (begging the question)

        “The Shared Psychosis of Donald Trump and His Loyalists”

        “Billion Dollars Disasters Shattered US Record in 2020” (ignoring inflation and cost of government mandated lockdowns and forest mismanagement)

        “The Best Evidence for How to Overcome COVID Vaccine Fears”

        “The Science of Spiritual Narcissism”

    2. It is known that all of the tech companies refuse to explicitly tell anyone why they’re banned from the platform, beyond the circular reasoning that they violated the terms of service.

      “Why [did Dinsdale Piranha nail your head to the floor]?”

      “Well he had to didn’t he? I mean, be fair, there was nothing else he could do. I mean, I had transgressed the unwritten law.”

      “What had you done?”

      “Er. . . . Well, he never told me that. But he gave me his word that it was the case, and that’s good enough for me with old Dinsy.”

      1. +1, MP

  10. “Those that don’t may find that they’ve only made themselves irrelevant in an online world built around openness and free discussion.”

    That’s just it though, they’re trying to make it so the online world isn’t built around those principles. They’re not trying to have their cake and eat it too, they’re explicitly stating that there are right and wrong ways to think and if you’re wrong you’ll be memory-holed. They won’t become irrelevant, they’ll be viewed as the saviors who prevented those evil people from being even more evil.

    It’s clear that the values of openness and free discussion are no longer mainstream American values, that’s why these companies are rewarded by their users for their censorious behavior. We value the completely made up right to never be offended by anything more than we value free expression, these companies are just doing the logical thing of noticing those values and monetizing them.

    1. It’s clear that the values of openness and free discussion are no longer mainstream American values, that’s why these companies are rewarded by their users for their censorious behavior. We value the completely made up right to never be offended by anything more than we value free expression, these companies are just doing the logical thing of noticing those values and monetizing them.

      The fact of this almost makes me wish that COVID really was the Black Plague the media has made it out to be, or even a Captain Trips-level quasi-extinction event. A good chunk of the 20s-50s generation, and the Boomer/Gen-X parents who raised them, has shown they don’t deserve to run a lemonade stand, much less be in charge of a complex society. They’ve already shown with this pandemic that their pampered asses are WAY too soft to handle any real adversity.

      No wonder China and the Russians, two monocultures that consider this sort of emoting to be an utter weakness, are kicking our asses.

    2. Sadly, the very tolerance they championed to raise us up as human beings has devolved to lower the bar of intolerance to meet each new micro-level of offense.

    3. I think you (or they) have a mistaken impression of what “we” believe.

  11. People’s inalienable rights are protected everywhere within the borders of a nation.

    That’s a fundamental prerequisite to setting up shop.

    You don’t forfeit your right to life when you step onto private property.

    If a company wants to enter the business of speech here, it must be free.

    1. Everyone… New readers especially… Be advised that Rob Misek is a holocaust denier! He doesn’t share the same reality as normal people do! You can NOT reason with Rob Misek! It is a TOTAL waste of time! (Kinda like Der JesseBahnFuhrer and Nadless Nardless, the Nasty NAZI, come to think of it).

      1. fuck off sarcasmic

      2. Thanks for demonstrating your cancel culture disdain for 1a.

        As it happens, speech, sharing the factual evidence that refutes the holocaust narrative is already a crime in every nation where it allegedly occurred. Reality is a crime and is not allowed a defence.

        When propaganda and censorship are used together, generations of entire nations are brainwashed. They aren’t free.

      3. You can NOT reason with Rob Misek! It is a TOTAL waste of time!

        Fuckin’ LOL at you typing that out with no sense of irony at all.

        1. That Red-Turds-for-Brains would defend a rampaging, unapologetic NAZI-worshipper somehow comes as NO surprise to me!

          1. That Dumbfuck HihnSQRLSo exhibits no self-awareness whatsoever is even less surprising.

      4. Not sure how to take a warning from someone who’s very recently proven himself an idiot.

  12. keeping in mind of course that Trump had just used his Twitter page to promote a rally that turned into a riot. Twitter’s decision to ban Trump is well within the private company’s rights

    2 things… if the policy is applied equally then it should apply to DNC or BLM linked accounts as well. It does not.

    Also… Companies do not have a right to blatantly change the terms of their contracts at a whim with their users/customers. That is a violation of contract rights. A point Reason is determined to never delve into. Terms such as these are called unconscionable.

    https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/what-makes-a-contract-unconscionable

    The problem here is that these groups often entered into capture where they promised one thing, then gained revenue and profit from users self promoting their own pages on the site, then get kicked off without warning or with random and arbitrary changes to the site.

    In no other industry would we allow this behavior.

    1. keeping in mind of course that Trump had just used his Twitter page to promote a rally that turned into a riot.

      Is this the standard? Because I have some thoughts about various BLM and Antifa gatherings that occurred in 2020….

      1. Amen. And I do mean “men”.

    2. “The problem here is that these groups often entered into capture where they promised one thing, ”

      The other problem is that the government has made it very difficult to attract capital investment or go public for potential competitors. This has entrenched the Googles and Facebooks, even allowing them to be primary funders of companies, thereby allowing them to out compete or just gobble up new companies. This is a very bad thing for creative destruction.

    3. “Also… Companies do not have a right to blatantly change the terms of their contracts at a whim with their users/customers.”

      This is true and intuitive, but it interferes with libertarian dogma. So you see where the problem is.

      No one can sign a contract in which he signs away all powers to the other. I can’t consent to be raped or be a slave, so to speak. But according to the rationale displayed in this very thread, Twitter should be able to decide “3 days from now some of you can post in 500 characters and some of you only in 240 characters ok bye”. They apparently don’t have to abide by any standard whatsoever, either from corporate or government.

      Tweaking section 230 so phrases like “let’s take our country back” in a purely political context can stay up is not some Soviet style intrusion of freedom of association. Neither is ensuring that if they take down Trump’s account, then they must also do so for ever other actors who “incite”. Unlike the Christian baker resisting gay wedding cakes, Twitter has already entered into a deal with customers when they sign up. Governments can and have set standards on such relationship. If you’re saying the government should have zero role over it, then you’re just an anarchist.

      The libertarians here are strangely ok with FB bullying the face of their movement or YT taking down videos because they had some snippets of copyrighted material. Our lives and businesses are on social media, and they should be just turned off at the whim of tech private companies. A REAL libertarian would not sue his boss for wrongful termination if he says you violated speech code when he didn’t, but I would. I’m not loyal to “private companies”. I supported limited government, not zero government.

  13. Needless to say, the social media giant’s decision to lock Paul’s page is not censorship.

    What an embarrassingly stupid thing to say, of course it’s censorship. It is not a First Amendment violation. Facebook is limiting his ability to distribute his message because they disapprove of the content. That their effort is incomplete or ineffective does not change what they are doing.

  14. But moral panic is not a solid content moderation strategy.

    If this is the larvae which will grow in the proper level of concern and outrage over what’s been happening over the last five years, I guess I’ll take it.

    1. Didn’t Boehm spend the weeks leading up to the election making mountains out of Trump molehill tweets?

      Boehm, Binion, Britschgi are like “the Squad” of Reason, and they got what they wanted when Trump lost.

      If the consequences of what they wanted to happen are now starting to dawn on them, then I’m questioning their intelligence.

      Voting for Trump was the way to avoid this, and the only hope that the next two years of nightmare will end is if we can elect Republicans. If they haven’t come to terms with that reality yet, this is pre-larval stage.

      The realization for some of them may not come until they feel the need to drop Reason from their resume for fear of being blackballed. After all, Reason is a publication that hasn’t always been sufficiently and acceptably progressive.

      1. You mean blacklisted, not blackballed.

      2. I will add that this was true, NOT because of any virtue, morality or intelligence possessed by Trump, but just to keep the fuckers now in charge out of control.

        But noooo…he’s stupid, he’s rude, I don’t like the way he talks, blahdeblah.

        Fuck Reason. I keep coming back, wondering if they’re going to improve and it never happens. (the comment section’s kinda gone to shit too.)

  15. I guess Ron Paul falls more on the “Not okay” side of the censorship spectrum than Trump

    1. Or an entire platform, and only just barely.

      Neither is a condemnation of any sort whatsoever.

  16. First they came for conspiracy theorist, like Alex Jones, but i said nothing, because I’m not a conspiracy theorist.

    Then they came for Conservative voices, but I said nothing, because I’m not a Conservative.

    Then they came for Libertarian voices…

    Side note: of course, Reason isn’t worried either, because Ron Paul is totes a racist. Right ENB?

    1. I said the same thing on hit n run, that this definitely has a first they came for the Jews flavor to it.

  17. Facebook is under active investigation by the government under the guise of antitrust, and the Democrats have made it abundantly clear that they expect companies like Facebook to censor and deplatform conservative voices. In fact, they’ve openly called on using the government to break up Facebook for not doing enough to censor speech.

    With those facts in mind, why are we talking about this in terms of private property and freedom of association?

    The reason Facebook is doing this is because Trump is out of the White House and the Republicans lost the senate–and they have nothing to fear from the Republicans for at least two years. The reason Facebook is doing this is because they’re afraid of what the Democrats will do to them via antitrust and in congress if they don’t.

    This isn’t about private property and freedom of association. The government and the Democratic party are one in the same. This is about the Democrats using the government to force private companies to censor speech on the government’s behalf–and arguments about private property and freedom of association are completely missing the point.

    1. I see I missed this comment before I made my own comment.

    2. Yeah, absent government pressure the social media companies might still be doing some censoring, but probably not on this scale.

      But what can, say, the courts do? Overrule a private company? Order the company to ignore government pressure? Tell members of Congress to shut up?

      1. Find them in violation of antitrust law.

        This is clear collusion on the behalf of BigTech to destroy a company that just so happens to be a competitor. There should be no mystery as to exactly what’s happening now.

        1. If they are in violation, AND that investigation IS underway, they will hash it out in court. Rule of Law. Not Rule of Who Screams the loudest.

          1. Rule of Law. Not Rule of Who Screams the loudest.

            That’s easy to say when the latter are completely on your side and driving the national narrative.

            1. Not only driving it, but throwing everyone who doesn’t agree with them off.

          2. That all assumes an investigation would even come.

            I’d put the odds in negative territory that any action whatsoever will be brought by fedgov, even if it were to become clear to all that wrongdoing happened.

    3. It started with blaming a few bad and poorly shared FB memes for Clinton loosing. Actually it predates that to, to the fact that for two decades, at least, the progressives have been increasingly less friendly to the spirit of free speech, or even to the explicitly spelled out definition of free speech. And unfortunately to many libertarians have shrugged their shoulders and blew it off with “my private business”. There is a large gap between not saying anything and dismissing this behavior and government must regulate to assure no bias, but it seems a number of commenters believe those are the only two choices.

      1. And after what happened to Parler on Friday, and the lack of concern voiced by some self proclaimed libertarians and capitalists, I have to conclude that they were okay with this as long as it didn’t impact their viewpoints. But now we see it is not just Pro-Trump or pro-conservatives, but it going to spread to anyone not on the ideological far left. FB banning walk away, Apple, Amazon and Google deplatdforming Parler and FB locking out Ron Paul. Yes, none of the groups I stated has a right to the platforms they have been banned from, but that doesn’t mean we should ignore the dangers these types of activities produce. Especially, as you point out that the both parties have been threatening them if they didn’t start censoring and that we now have one party rule, effectively for the next two years. Or that many of these companies have worked with the government in the past, have received funding from the government and that these companies have an incestuous relationship with the Democratic party.

        1. But now we see it is not just Pro-Trump or pro-conservatives, but it going to spread to anyone not on the ideological far left. FB banning walk away, Apple, Amazon and Google deplatdforming Parler and FB locking out Ron Paul. Yes, none of the groups I stated has a right to the platforms they have been banned from, but that doesn’t mean we should ignore the dangers these types of activities produce.

          “Rights” is not the term that we should be invoking here, since it’s being employed in a legalistic fashion. Our enemies make no distinction between natural rights and legislated rights–to them, it’s all the same thing.

          Ethics is a much better description of the conundrum we’re looking at in this situation. The question of “rights,” AFAIC, is a red herring. For the MUH PRINCPLZ crowd, the coordinated quashing of speech that was happily tolerated for years, even decades, in the public square and on social media, should raise massive alarms. We didn’t deplatform 9/11 truthers, we just ridiculed and ignored them until they went away on their own, and never had to take away their voice through force. Now, it’s “shut up or we’ll make you shut up.”

          Anyone thinking that a corporation can’t be just as oppressive as a government is delusional, especially when that corporation is working hand-in-glove with the government itself.

          1. Actually, ethics is a much better term, you are correct as new speak has broken down the side of natural rights vs legislative rights and many libertarians lado seem to have fallen for this fallacy.

    4. And due to HR1 (2017), ballot harvesting, and insecure voter verification, the Dems don’t have to worry about 2022 either. Or 2024 or 2030 or 2050.

      You mooks don’t get it. It’s over.

      We live in a one-party nation now, and they firmly control the media and the indoctrin…errr…educational system. No need to fudge vote counts or tamper with voting machines, you will never see a Republican president, or a Republican majority in Congress, and ever-fewer Republican-run states.

      I give the Rs about 10 years, and they’ll be gone. No great loss, they rolled over and “adopted the posture”. Now hide and watch: All the “independent” parties will be declared radical, extremist and “dangerous to national security”. Hounded, hunted down, eliminated. You don’t think our intelligence agencies can make that happen? lol.

      Fuck all who’ve enabled this. Who didn’t believe the evidence, the meta-analysis, the common fucking sense that made it obvious what was happening.

      (But especially Mick 2. May you rot in a gulag, you tool.)

  18. Then they came for Reason writers and nobody cared

    1. Was supposed to be a reply to Jason A

      1. Damn squirrels!?!

        You are correct to NOT include Reason writers in the same sentence as Libertarians.

    2. Oh I care. I’ll do a post 9-11 muslim dance in the street in front of their office as they get carted away.

      1. Writing letters to private companies, if enough people do so, generally is enough pressure to get them to change. Investing in start up competitors, in lieu of leaving for a different platform (as they also seem bent on using their power to destroy any alternatives) is another measure.

        1. Sorry man. Please read this outline of just how much power they have, and how easily it can be brought to bear:

          https://medium.com/unsafe-space/welcome-to-the-digital-reign-of-terror-b0c7e8d7c3a5

          I really expect this to be taken down soon. Not that it matters.

      2. Me too.

        Also, re: this discussion

        The murders at Charlie Hebdo magazine offices weren’t censorship either. So they were okay.

    3. It’s not clear they will, because Reason is trying to be a woke as Vox

  19. “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices…. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies, much less to render them necessary.”

    —-Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations

    https://lpmaryland.org/liberty-quotation-adam-smith-collusion/

    That is a nail on the head description of what just happened to Parler, and it’s painfully obvious that the government is making exactly that kind of collusion necessary.

    Ron Paul should expect all his other social media accounts to dry up shortly if they haven’t already.

    1. The Ayatolla Khameini’s twitter account remains in good standing.

      1. He’s just mocking America in general, not Democrats in particular. So I guess it’s OK.

    2. This.

      How long until his Twitter is locked?

  20. I fought for Trump because I knew this censorship would happen (among many other reasons). No he wasn’t perfect, but Biden will be far worse. The problem was that many ‘Trump supporters’ (people typically in his coalition) cynically undermined his campaign, thinking that the backlash to the resulting censorship regime would energize their movement. In fact it will quickly crumble under its own hypocrisy.

    Libertarians are second in line after the ‘white nationalists’. Free thinking is an imminent threat to public health.

  21. I would like to remind everyone that both the President Trump and the President-Elect Biden have expressed their desire and purpose to GUT and REWRITE Section 230.

    Thus it’s understandable that Facebook and Twitter are busily complying with government whims, because the government and its supporters on both the Left and Right are demanding that all social media be put under the direct control of the government. Ostensibly to keep Josh Hawley from feeling bad.

    You want government to regulate social media? This is what it looks like.

    The Comics Code Authority did not come about because DC and Marvel were ordered to come up with a comics code, it come about because DC and Marvel feared that Congress would require them to, so they beat them to the punch to demonstrate that they were good “citizens”. We seeing the same thing now with social media. Fearing that Hawley and other bruised egos in Congress will impose excessively strict moderation regulations on social media, they beat them to be punch by demonstrating, “See, we do care about your feelz, Mr. Hawley!”

    1. Also, fuck Josh Hawley. Gotta say that now while it’s still legal to say it.

      1. Social media companies are champing at the bit, waiting to do Hawley’s bidding.

        1. Well he’s teamed up with Sen. Blumenthal (D) on a number of his tech legislative drafts so I am sure he’s still got some pull. Of course that is why I can’t stand the guy. Blumenthal is still probably blaming Doom for all the worlds ills.

      2. You stupid ass doesn’t even know what censorship is retard.

    2. The Comics Code Authority did not come about because DC and Marvel were ordered to come up with a comics code, it come about because DC and Marvel feared that Congress would require them to, so they beat them to the punch to demonstrate that they were good “citizens”.

      The Motion Picture Association’s “voluntary” rating system came about exactly the same way, along with self-censorship of television after the “vast cultural wasteland” speech in, what, 1964?

      1. Uh, the MPAA’s voluntary rating system came as a toothless replacement for the Hays Code. The Hays Code *was* an effort to stave off government censorship, but it was on life support by the mid-60s

    3. “I would like to remind everyone that both the President Trump and the President-Elect Biden have expressed their desire and purpose to GUT and REWRITE Section 230.”

      And before the last few days, I’d have been adamantly opposed to that. But the way they’re flexing their muscle lately, I’m moving toward “fuck ’em”.

      Having these guys do this is like the NYT editorializing against hate speech. Their entire existence is dependent upon free speech, but they seem to give zero shits about the speech of anybody else.

    4. “I would like to remind everyone that both the President Trump and the President-Elect Biden have expressed their desire and purpose to GUT and REWRITE Section 230”

      So? Purging them is still evil.

    5. They were doing this before Trump started talking about Section 230, though, so it isn’t like this isn’t a path they never would have taken on their own.

      Between this, YouTube purges, and the Parler shut down we are somewhere between the Hays Code and CCP regulations on the scale of censorship. The former was an industry self-censoring it’s own content while the latter affects all content producers. It’s a Hays Code where the movie studios can make sure nobody sells you any film and independent theatres can’t show it without losing ability to also show those from the major studios.

      1. Don’t forget the “fact checks” and “missing context” warnings when shared content isn’t in line with the party. And a newspaper being blocked in unison because an article they wrote made The Party look bad.

        It’s been going on in various forms. Now that it’s clear that Democrats won the whole gamut, they took away any pretense by purging conservatives en masse in 2 days.

        And that includes an entire platform.

      2. It’s been said that the NCAA was similarly organized in response to a threat to ban football. You wouldn’t know it from looking at them now, but the NCAA was originally a football-suppressing organization that was tightening the screws until the 1940s, by which time they’d been coopted and turned into promoters.

    6. Same with the MPAA code, although in that case municipalities already were censoring movie exhibitions.

  22. Ron Paul and his supporters are all white supremacists and should be banned from all social media.

    1. Ah welcome visitor from Jezebel – or is it Jacobin.

      GFY.

      1. It’s a parody account satirizing Elizabeth Nolan Brown’s opinions. Check the name.

  23. Do we know whether the government is involved here? How can we be sure one way or another?

    Unless Senator Claghorn chooses to issue a press release that “today I called Facebook and asked him to do something about all these danged right-wing traitors,” how will the public know?

    1. See Ken’s post above. The Democrats have stated on multiple occasions that Facebook should censor speech they deem unworthy. Then it happens and the Reason trolls are like, “it’s freedom of association! not censorship!”

      Look, it’s not hard to connect the dots. And, if you’ve studied history just ONE little fucking bit, it should be clear where this leads to.

      All we’ve heard from the “freedom of association” trolls is, you should just build your own apps and sites. How’s that working for Parlor? Should we have to build our internet too? JFC man! If you cannot see that the Tech companies are actively censoring non-Democratic approved narratives, and you cannot understand why this is both censorship and 1A issues, you have your head buried in the sand.

  24. Reason equivocating and defending a corporation because of a post questioning authority. By Ron Paul.

    Fuck you guys have really hit rock bottom.

  25. one note of caution if we ever get to force social network to carry everyone, a form of equal time, they may require all forms of information dispersal to provide “equal time” as well. Meaning people like Rush Limbaugh will have to give equal time to some lef leaning clown

    1. And if there’s anything we learned from back when we had the “Fairness Doctrine,” what “Fairness” means is that both dominant parties (and no one else whatsoever) must be allowed to weight in on every issue.

      Remember how US Today had (and probably still does) the dueling op-eds?

      “Here are the two available opinions, folks, pick one. And remember to go vote!”

    2. Look, IF these platforms can actually do moderation at that scale, why can’t the do it even-handedly? THEN, they’re platforms, not publishers. Which latter status I think they long ago attained when they let the 20 somethings take sides on their platform.

      This is neither government suppression of free speech nor “gutting section 230”, which DOES say it protects NEUTRAL PLATFORMS.

      Everybody seems to have a point that is better made by exaggeration and hyperbole than just admitting these companies brought this shit on themselves.

      Moderate illegal content, when that fails, give up the user whose content is illegal. Done.

      But no. SOME people don’t want equal treatment and free speech.

  26. Of course, when someone dismisses Twitter or FB as the Democrat Party’s butt-monkeys they’ll be the first to scream “no we’re totes neutral! It’s sooooooooooooooo unfair to say that about us!”

    1. “and we’ll make sure you don’t”

  27. “And that’s exactly the problem. Facebook does not owe anyone a platform—but if it is changing its standards for what content will be allowed, it ought to explain the new rules in terms that are easily understandable and equally applied.”

    Which they do not do. They typically do not even explain to the person being banned what infraction of their changing standards that have been violated.

    This is the big problem with the Big Tech companies, there is no transperancy, there are just seemingly arbitrary decsions without explanations.

  28. …an online world built around openness and free discussion.

    What world would that be? LO-fucking-L.

  29. Those of you who advocate private media speech censorship must think that 1a can only be guaranteed when everyone has their own platform.

    You completely oblivious to the fact that there is no communication. The point of speech.

    You need reminding that 1a is an inalienable right.

    “It isn’t just Twitter. Mark Zuckerberg (zero votes) had already indefinitely suspended Trump (74million votes) from Facebook. Reddit has scrubbed its Donald Trump thread. All social-media accounts that promote the mad Qanon conspiracy theory are being suspended. Mike Flynn and Sidney Powell have been banished from Twitter. YouTube is now banning any video and account that says the American election was fraudulent. This shows how ideological Silicon Valley oligarchs have become. For four years leading members of the media and cultural elites in the US and the UK have said the American presidential election and the EU referendum of 2016 were frauds. That they were meddled with, illegitimate, should be overthrown. You’ll find tens of thousands of videos on YouTube featuring people saying the vote for Brexit was a fit-up by Ruskies or an ‘advisory’ vote fraudulently turned into an instructional one. They won’t be taken down. Because our tech overlords are engaged in acts of openly political censorship.

    And then there’s Parler, the libertarian alternative to Twitter. Google this week removed the Parler app from its store on the basis that it doesn’t control its users’ inflammatory speech strictly enough. Apple is threatening to do likewise. All those who said ‘Just make your own social-media platform’ clearly underestimated the tyrannical determination of the woke elites to erase ‘offensive speech’ from every quarter of the internet. This is a full-on purge of any voice that significantly runs counter to the worldview of the anti-populist elites.

    That the left is cheering this on is cretinism of the most remarkable kind. They are green-lighting the most thorough assault on freedom of speech that the capitalist elites have ever carried out. They are sanctioning the control of speech by billionaires. They are celebrating as corporate oligarchies interfere directly in the democratic process. They are making a fetish of private property rights, insisting that the corporate rights of virtual monopolies like Twitter and Facebook, in this case their right to throw people off their platforms, override the social, democratic good of free public debate.”

    Brendan O’Neill

    1. “That the left is cheering this on is cretinism of the most remarkable kind.”

      The Left does not have principles, it has goals. Their willingness to do anything to achieve their goals is the most remarkable thing about them. I would not call it cretinism. It is utter shamelessness.

    2. Everyone “out there”… New readers especially… Be ye advised that Rob Misek is a holocaust denier! He doesn’t share the same reality as normal people do! You can NOT reason with Rob Misek! It is a TOTAL waste of time!

      1. Sadly he is more libertarian than you sarcasmic.

        1. Der JesseBahnFuhrer defends holocaust denial, because Der JesseBahnFuhrer can NOT face up to the end results of endless worshipping of authoritarian Government Almighty, and the mass denial of human dignity, human freedom, and humans life, that would automatically follow from the implemenation of The Perfect Will of Der JesseBahnFuhrer. Der JesseBahnFuhrer, too, is a denier of the holocaust that would / will follow from obedience to Der JesseBahnFuhrer! Seig Heil, NAZI bastard!

      2. fuck off sarcasmic

      3. Thanks for demonstrating your cancel culture disdain for 1a.

        As it happens, speech, sharing the factual evidence that refutes the holocaust narrative is already a crime in every nation where it allegedly occurred. Reality is a crime and is not allowed a defence.

        When propaganda and censorship are used together, generations of entire nations are brainwashed.

        1. Thanks for demonstrating your cancel culture disdain for 1a.

          He’s not saying you shouldn’t be allowed to say the Holocaust didn’t happen. He’s just pointing out that you’re a Holocaust denier, which is accurate.

          sharing the factual evidence that refutes the holocaust narrative

          . . . indicates that you don’t “share the same reality as normal people do.”

          1. Reality, truth is demonstrated by the accepting the irrefutable evidence of logic and science.

            If you have considered and refuted the evidence that refutes the holocaust narrative, you certainly haven’t demonstrated it here, though I have provided you many opportunities to by your own admission.

            Upon what then do you base your perception of reality?

        2. I’m NOT advocating that Government Almighty shut you up, evil NAZI! I am merely warning readers that you ARE an evil NAZI! That kind of thing, thank Government Almighty and Section 230, I am still allowed to do!

          1. Nazi is your brainwashed trigger for bigotry.

      4. True. He is a Holocaust denying idiot.

        But that doesn’t make him wrong about this.

        Principles > Principals

      5. Fuck you. I’ll judge his statements on my own you fucking one man “cancel culture”. BTW, you have no standing, so fuck off, I didn’t appoint you to protect me from his “awful” ideas.

        Plus, and I hope this stings: He sounds much more sane and reasonable than you do in his posts on this thread. Consider that.
        He’s a raving monster…and he makes more sense than you do.
        Some self-awareness might be in order, eh?

    3. I don’t know when Mr. O’Neil said that but Parler has effectively been shut down by Amazon. It was running on AWS and Amazon claims they violated their TOS and now Parler is suing them.

      1. Brendan O’Neill

        9th January 2021

        The woke purge

  30. I do love all the “private company” cosplay liberals here completely ignoring the blatant collusion of the market place.

    https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/tyler-o-neil/2021/01/11/parler-will-be-down-longer-than-expected-as-more-vendors-drop-big-tech-alternative-n1331391

    1. The open internet is dead. Big Tech and the Democrats murdered it.

  31. “In the past few days, some of the nation’s most powerful corporations have engaged in a concerted effort, at the behest of a major political party, to limit the speech of millions of Americans who engaged in wrongthink. First, Twitter permanently banned the sitting president. As is its right. And when millions of his fans left and bolstered Parler, a different platform, Apple, Google, and Amazon went ahead and shut it down as well.

    But if you say that targeted deplatforming, though not Stalinist, is troubling, the same people who want to compel everyone to buy state-mandated health insurance, who want to dictate how corporations compensate their employees, who want to force nuns to buy abortifacients, and who want to destroy the lives of bakers and florists who run businesses according to long-held religious beliefs will vigorously defend the value of free-association rights that allow corporations to act this way. So I’m pretty skeptical that most of these people are genuine champions of individual market choices, and aren’t just super excited about silencing people.” – David Harsanyi

  32. All this is going to do is accelerate the decelopment of a parallel set of communication tools for people not aligned with the Tech Giants. There is vast money to be made.

    1. *development

      1. NO actually, you can also invest. And work. And use.

    2. Then there’s the issue of how it makes money. If it tries the ad model there will be the expected pressure, both social and political, on any company with the temerity to advertise there. And don’t think they won’t use everything including the IRS and the courts to apply said pressure.

    3. That’s a lot of words for, “Go build your own Internet.”

      In the face of government and big tech colluding to stop you. Should be easy.

      1. No. Not “build your own Internet”. But, “build your own platform”.

        1. Until they conspire to destroy that as well. See Parler.

          1. He’s just gonna keep acting like that didn’t happen.

    4. No. There. Is. Not.

      https://medium.com/unsafe-space/welcome-to-the-digital-reign-of-terror-b0c7e8d7c3a5

      They’ve won. They have the high ground. You CANNOT compete with them. For years I’ve been consoling myself with the observation that “Things never proceed in a straight extrapolation very far into the future. Something always changes the equation.”

      No. I was wrong. It’s freaking over. The Dems run the country, they WILL run the country, and they’ve rigged it so nothing can change that.

      Enjoy, comrades. Tell yourselves, “Well, at least my stocks went up.”

  33. But moral panic is not a solid content moderation strategy.

    Section 230 is the last remaining vestige of The Original content moderation moral panic.

  34. You know what is wrong with conservatism? Pussies like you.

  35. SJWs have less attention span than a goldfish?

    “The New Orleans Saints deleted a tweet showing quarterback Drew Brees wearing a #SayHerName shirt before Sunday’s playoff game against the Chicago Bears — which he and other players have worn all season to draw attention to the Breonna Taylor shooting — over complaints Brees actually wore it for Ashli Babbitt, a supporter of President Donald Trump who was fatally shot by police during last week’s Capitol siege, USA Today’s For the Win reported.”

    1. That would have been fucking hilarious if Brees was secretly thinking that.

    2. Don’t forget that they’ll also be the first ones to whinge about white folk not getting it and not helping. Damned if ya do, damned if ya don’t.

      The only way to win is not to play.

      1. Unfortunately, we’re all forced to play this stupid game.

        And pay for it for the pleasure, lest we go to jail.

      2. Wah wah my biggest problem in life is that I have to freely walk away from a conversation nobody invited me to.

  36. And that’s exactly the problem. Facebook does not owe anyone a platform

    No that is not exactly the problem. Facebook does not owe anyone a platform. Nor does the Internet require a proprietary platform in order to create the transactions that constitute ‘social media’.

    Web 1.0 did not require any proprietary platforms. Email and http and irc are protocols not platforms. But because those protocols are not owned by an individual company, it means that a customer doesn’t have to lose their entire history of email communications/etc merely by switching from yahoo mail to google mail. So competition can always happen with one person inventing a better mousetrap.

    But just because protocols once existed and then were killed off by platforms doesn’t mean they can be resurrected new/better/etc. Sometime dead is just dead and whatever the Internet once promised is now just – dead.

    1. Correct.

    2. EXACTLY. AWS is just a platform implementing a series of protocols. There is nothing stopping anyone from creating their own platform to implement the same series of protocols. To think that everyone MUST go through AWS to have their website hosted is just baloney. AWS just makes it super-easy, but it is not absolutely required.

      As I said earlier, AWS is like the owner of an office complex and Parler is like a tenant in the complex. That AWS kicked Parler out of the complex does not mean Parler is completely unable to do any business at all. It just is unable to do business *at that office complex*. They have to find another complex, or if necessary, build their own. It sucks for Parler but that is a better solution *overall* then going down the road of the government forcing AWS or any other platform owner from hosting all content against the wishes of the property owner.

      1. There is nothing stopping anyone from creating their own platform to implement the same series of protocols.

        The courts. Microsoft has notoriously maintained its position by suing the shit out of anyone that comes within miles of their intellectual property. How does anyone stand a chance of setting up shop across from the the richest man in the world when he has the blessing of the political party in control of 2 branches of the government and responsible for appointing the next wave of federal judges? Are you willing to get bled dry trying?

        1. You know, it is actually possible to write code that runs on Windows without using Microsoft’s intellectual property to do it.

          How does anyone stand a chance of setting up shop across from the the richest man in the world

          So why does that argument not work for, say, all other sectors of the economy?

          “How does anyone stand a chance of setting up a retail shop across the street from Walmart?”
          “How does anyone stand a chance of setting up a burger joint across the street from McDonald’s?”
          “How does anyone stand a chance of setting up a brewery across the street from Anheuser-Busch?”

          Are libertarians now going to start demanding that market competition be “fair”?

          1. Look, just because some people think the City of San Angeles is a model society doesn’t mean that it’s actually one to aspire to.

          2. Are libertarians now going to start demanding that market competition be “fair”?

            No. But using the courts to bludgeon your competitors while enforcing the will of the party that holds Congress and the White House has nothing to do with competing in the marketplace, so why do you ask?

            1. But using the courts to bludgeon your competitors

              By enforcing intellectual property law? Are you against IP?

              while enforcing the will of the party that holds Congress and the White House

              Oh good heavens. No one has posted anything concrete that what AWS or Google did was at the direction of any political entity. Just speculation and conspiratorial thinking.

              1. https://medium.com/unsafe-space/welcome-to-the-digital-reign-of-terror-b0c7e8d7c3a5

                Fuck you. Your demand that these sophisticated political players must surely have left a smoking gun somewhere is more ridiculous every fucking time you post it.

                Also, does it make things all right (for you) if they just happen to WANT to do the bidding of DNC? What the fuck is wrong with your brain? The effects on democracy and free speech are unchanged by your stupid apologetics.

      2. AWS is like the owner of an office complex and Parler is like a tenant in the complex

        No, it’s more like AWS is running a feudal territory and Parler is like a tenant that said something bad about the king.

        You literally have no understanding of how AWS came about or how insidious it has become. Amazon could literally shut down its entire retail operation at this point and be able to survive on just AWS alone. The whole point of it was to monopolize online commerce. And as I’ve pointed out, the federal government now has contracts with them, including the CIA. That fact alone should raise alarms, because not only is the government now dependent on Amazon’s survival, what if the cloud gets hacked? The whole cloud concept has been one that’s ripe for exploitation, if The Fappening didn’t drive this home.

        1. The king is a fink.

          1. +1. I think I still have some Wizard of Id comic books in the basement.

        2. Whether Parler refers to the owner of the office complex as “landlord” or “my liege” really isn’t relevant in the context of the analogy.

          The whole point of it was to monopolize online commerce.

          Well it hasn’t succeeded yet.

          “As of October 2020, Canalys reports that the worldwide cloud market grew 33% this quarter to $36.5 billion. AWS has 32% of the market and generated more revenue than the next three largest combined, Azure is at 19% of the market, Google Cloud at 7%, Alibaba Cloud close behind at 6%, and other clouds with 37%.”

          https://www.parkmycloud.com/blog/aws-vs-azure-vs-google-cloud-market-share/

          I am sure that the intricacies of cloud computing would make a fascinating topic but I don’t see how that is relevant in the context of the current discussion.

          1. Whether Parler refers to the owner of the office complex as “landlord” or “my liege” really isn’t relevant in the context of the analogy.

            You brought up the analogy, dingus, I just pointed out where it was faulty.

            Well it hasn’t succeeded yet.
            ::cites an article that shows AWS is actually the largest provider and generated more revenue than the next three largest combined::

            I am sure that the intricacies of cloud computing would make a fascinating topic but I don’t see how that is relevant in the context of the current discussion.

            That’s because you can’t see the forest for the trees.

            1. AWS’s market share of cloud computing is 32%. That is not a “monopoly”, not even close.

              1. ::cites an article that shows AWS is actually the largest provider and generated more revenue than the next three largest combined::

            2. Also, if they all act in concert all that statistics-parsing is just obfuscation. Which, at this point, appears to be his goal.

              But keep posting wrong argument, Jeff. Do it enough and they’ll become right! That’s how it works in physics, and marriage.

      3. Now do cake baking.

  37. If the government uses its influence to pressure a private company to censor speech it doesn’t like then should we still consider it private action?

    1. Seems like a lot of effort to simply recognize that censorship violates 1a.

      1. By making the action indirect they can make it appear to not violate 1a. They can make it annoying and very expensive to not comply.

        1. I don’t know about you, but I recognize censorship when I see it.

          In a nation that professes to have the inalienable right of free speech people can be pretty oblivious to the alienation of it.

    2. One fundamental difference between socialism and fascism is that in socialism the government owns the companies but in fascism the government only controls the companies.

      One could argue that the Great Depression allowed Italy and Germany to control so many of the businesses because the governments wouldn’t let the companies fail. Was that a contributing factor of WW2? I don’t know but I think it’s likely.

      1. Economies are fictions of human design.

        Why would we design one with depressions?

        The answer, following the money, is indicative of the cause conducive to war.

    3. Does the final decision rest with the private property owner? If so, then it is a private action, unless you can prove outright coercion.

      1. Contractual interference by the government is not a private action.

        But don’t let me interrupt your kneejerk defense of statism with logic.

        1. Where is the contractual interference in this case?

          1. Where is the contractual interference in this case?

            The government using its influence to pressure a private company to censor speech it doesn’t like when the company in question has an existing user agreement (contract) with the speaker. A 3rd party attempting to influence an existing contract is by definition interference.

            Kneejerk means reacting to something without thinking about it. You have done that twice now. Slow down. You will get there eventually. If you need to, you can look up ‘tortious interference’.

            1. The government using its influence to pressure a private company to censor speech it doesn’t like when the company in question has an existing user agreement (contract) with the speaker.

              Oh I see. So something that hasn’t been shown to have occurred in this case.

      2. What final decision? To violate 1a?

        Who among us has the authority to violate anyone’s inalienable rights?

        1. You mean like private property rights?

          1. Of all the rights, property is the least inalienable for the simple reason that it remains long after you’ve gone.

            Even so, while the property is recognized as yours, and others are invited to it, like a social media communication platform or your gathering, others bring their inalienable rights with them that you have no right to violate, like free speech and the right to life.

            If you want to violate 1a, set up shop in communist China.

            Or are you advocating setting up communism here?

          2. And you can’t coerce people to alienate their inalienable rights while they’re on property recognized as “yours”.

    4. Jeff requires a notarized document saying “We the Government forced Amazon, Google, Apple, et. al, to do this censoring thing.”

      That’s what has made him the world’s least-renowned Private Dick.

  38. I thought Libertarians were for free speech. Facebook cancels the biggest of all. No problemo for Boehm. Who else can Facebook decide you shouldn’t be able to hear. Boehm voted for Old Joe.

  39. Wow. So it only took Big Tech coming after a well known libertarian for Reason to finally offer up a tepid condemnation?

    Better than nothing, I suppose.

  40. Just a little thought. I’m pretty sure the government is one of Amazon’s biggest cloud customers. They can’t afford to piss off the incoming administration for risk of lost future revenue. Kicking parlor off might not be the act of a private company, but act of regulatory (future regulatory) capture. Can you prove that this isn’t indirect government censorship?

  41. “Twitter’s decision to ban Trump is well within the private company’s rights, but it does raise some not easily answered questions about how the site will handle other world leaders’ accounts in the future.”

    Not easily answered, LOL. Find someone who loves you like Twitter loves Xi and Khamanei.

  42. If so, that would be own-goal by the president’s supporters who stormed the capitol last week. There is no indication whatsoever that any group other than Trump’s supporters were responsible for the riot.

    . . .

    The president’s use of social media to spread obvious lies and stir up violence may have deserved a digital sledgehammer.

    The very fact that this was an own-goal by Trump’s supporters is a pretty clear indication that Trump himself *didn’t* intend to “stir up violence.” He had nothing to gain from violence (there’s no way that it could have kept the vote count from eventually being completed) and a lot to lose–such as having to fend off impeachment demands from Democrats who are shocked, shocked I tell you, at violence stirred up by anyone to the right of Rev. Al Sharpton.

  43. From Reddit, and I agree:

    Libertarians are hamstrung by their own philosophy in situations like this. And you all fucking know it. You perhaps can’t express it, but you know something is deeply fucked up beyond normal market forces.

    Authoritarian regimes silence all dissent. Yet we are better than that so we allow authoritarians to spew their garbage as freely as they like and we rely upon the marketplace of ideas to settle the argument believing that the best ideas will win.

    But what happens when the state along with private firms are espousing the same authoritarian ideology? And those firms are actively cancelling voices that dissent from the prevailing ideology of the state?

    Well, libertarians just throw up their hands and hope like fuck nobody with a badge knocks on their door because they sure as hell aren’t going to have any forum to complain about it on. You’re alone.

    It’s time you stopped being useful idiots with: but these firms have the right!

    Yeah, they do, but notice how your rights are quickly being erased in all other areas? It’s time your realised what’s being canceled isn’t your right to dissent on one particular platform, but your right to dissent at all.

    1. But what happens when the state along with private firms are espousing the same authoritarian ideology? And those firms are actively cancelling voices that dissent from the prevailing ideology of the state?

      That is easy. Start your own firm.

      1. Except you have to pay the toll to others who are in the government pocket. And they want you to conform. Good luck being rogue.

        It’s not a valid argument. If the power company cuts me off because it doesn’t like my politics, I have no chance of starting another power company.

        1. So, treat Big Tech like a public utility? Is that your argument?

          1. So, treat Big Tech like a public utility? Is that your argument?

            Why not? Sarah Jeong already defined online forums and platforms as the new public square, and wrote up the tactics of censorship that Big Tech and its Democratic allies are following to the letter to squash dissenters and competitors.

            If the left wants to use your principles as the rope to hang you with, why not use theirs as the knife to gut them with? Sooner or later, you’ll wake up to the fact that this is quickly becoming an existential conflict, and waving your arms going “wait, wait, what about our principles?” is going to get you treated as either a quisling or a weakling.

            1. Without principles, there are no standards for right and wrong, and every outrageous action by “their team” leads you and “your team” to consider using the same outrageous tactic against them. Last week it was sedition, what will it be next week?

              1. Libertarianism isn’t a suicide pact, which is why we must… murder libertarianism?

                And then they’ll be free to ally themselves with the neo-Nazis and take out everyone who doesn’t agree with installing their government strongman.

                THEN it’s freedom for all yippee.

                1. Ken Shultz
                  January 10 at 11.14AM
                  “…We often think Tony, Shrike, and ChemJeff are being dishonest–especially when they don’t seem to learn anything from having their arguments shredded and smeared in their faces everyday for years. But the fact that they don’t seem to learn anything–knowledge wise or in terms of critical thinking–may be consistent with the hypothesis that they’re just not that bright. And we shouldn’t necessarily assume that Binion, Boehm, or Britschgi are fundamentally different from them.
                  Maybe the reason they try to make us feel is because they’re incapable of making us think. It is beyond their capabilities…”

                  Tony, your limited capabilities have been noted. You are certainly dishonest, but that’s not the point: You are too stupid to understand that you’re dishonest.
                  Please make the world a more intelligent place; fuck off and die. Even the Oaks Glen ‘Dog Walkers Weekly’ won’t notice the change from the janitor taking over the editor’s position; he’s probably more qualified.

              2. Without principles, there are no standards for right and wrong, and every outrageous action by “their team” leads you and “your team” to consider using the same outrageous tactic against them.

                “Open war is upon you.”

      2. You can’t:
        https://medium.com/unsafe-space/welcome-to-the-digital-reign-of-terror-b0c7e8d7c3a5

        I asked you to keep posting stupid arguments, and it’s good to see you’ve kept at it. Glib, short, stupid ones instead of the “completely missing the point but I’ve got numbers” ones.

    2. So start your own social media platform, and host it on your own servers, and if you want to have it mobile phones, then start your own phone OS.

      The question all the Trump cultists, white nationalists, and nazis (but I repeat myself) should be asking themselves is this:

      “Why does nobody like me?”

      Seriously. Here is Parler CEO: “They made an attempt to not only kill the app, but to actually destroy the entire company. And it’s not just these three companies. Every vendor from text message services to email providers to our lawyers all ditched us too on the same day.”

      When your lawyers quit on you, it’s time to examine your recent actions.

      Maybe going full on openly seditious wasn’t the best play? I dunno. I don’t do personality cult logic.

      1. So start your own social media platform, and host it on your own servers, and if you want to have it mobile phones, then start your own phone OS.

        And get angel investment from the CIA and its proxies so your competition can’t squeeze you out.

      2. Maybe going full on openly seditious wasn’t the best play? I dunno. I don’t do personality cult logic.

        No, just the Cult of the State.

  44. Facebook does not owe anyone a platform—but if it is changing its standards for what content will be allowed, it ought to explain the new rules in terms that are easily understandable and equally applied.

    Yes, it really ought. The same way if I give McDonalds $5 for a Happy Meal, they really ought to give me a Happy Meal. It’s called a contract. Facebook does in fact owe people a platform – it owes the people who entered a contract with them to provide a platform a platform. And putting the little clause in there that they can change the terms of the contract any time they please for any reason whatsoever is not a legally enforceable part of contract law. The deal is, I give you access to all my private information, you give me a place to communicate my thoughts and opinions. You take that away, and I’m going to want my private information back, fucker.

    1. Mr. Skids, I like the way you think.

    2. Notice how the “Start Your Own Billion-Dollar Online Service” cultists have studiously avoided engaging this argument?

      1. Gee, maybe your strawman doesn’t got very far.

        1. Maybe you shouldn’t drunk-post, goofy.

    3. “…Facebook does in fact owe people a platform – it owes the people who entered a contract with them to provide a platform a platform. And putting the little clause in there that they can change the terms of the contract any time they please for any reason whatsoever is not a legally enforceable part of contract law. The deal is, I give you access to all my private information, you give me a place to communicate my thoughts and opinions. You take that away, and I’m going to want my private information back, fucker…”

      Bullshit.
      You agreed to the terms at the time, and at that time, there was no revocable access to the information you provided, further, there was no guarantee that the terms were in perpetuity.
      They not only have the right to offer changes in the terms of the contract, they have the fiduciary duty to their owners to do so
      Whine all you please; it’ll get you nowhere, and YOU should be bright enough to understand that.

      1. Fuck off, slaver.

  45. Calling it censorship is conflating the issue. The internet is not ‘free’. Google, Facebook, Twitter, the only part of their business that generates profits is selling their users to advertisers.

    Every one of these tech giants are clearly in violation of their users’ contract rights when they boot people off. The user has already fulfilled his part of the contract by logging on and viewing their unavoidable targeted advertising and posting content that draws other users to more targeted advertising. That they deny users of their choice access to the product they have already paid for is a clear breach of those users’ contract rights. If they want to claim a paid user in in violation of the ToS and should be removed, let them prove it or STFU. Otherwise, the law describes such one sided contracts as unconscionable.

    They are going to prosecute the Proud Boy for burning a BLM flag. Facebook is just as guilty here of stealing Ron Paul’s banner. This bullshit, ‘private companies can ban whoever they want for whatever reason’ is all a fucking smokescreen for outright theft of intellectual property.

  46. Real Libertarians believe that social media is a constitutional right and that all should be guaranteed a Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram account.

    Real Libertarians support nationalizing Big Tech and turning it into a public utility. Because what could go wrong with government owning the means of free expression? If you like Zuckerberg’s content moderation policies, then you’re gonna love President Kamala Harris’ content moderation policies!

    Real Libertarians support forcing AWS to host all website content on its servers. Because that is the proper libertarian solution when one private organization refuses to do business with another private organization – force them to do business anyway! And to rationalize it, we can pretend that AWS is really doing it at the behest of government by invoking scary sounding threats that we imagine Democrats told to Jeff Bezos.

    1. You never pass up an opportunity to go all argumentum ad absurdum. It’s why we love you, buddy.

      1. If you say so.

        It would be nice if those who are knee-deep in the performative outrage theater about what Big Tech is doing would stop for a moment to think about what they are actually advocating as a solution. I’ll give you a hint, it’s not that far away from what I have posted above.

        1. The free market solution is giving users back the ability to enforce the ToS and removing the unconscionable portions of the ToS which allows tech companies to change it at will in violation of all contract law precedence.

          1. This is what Twitter does right now:

            https://twitter.com/en/tos#update

            We may revise these Terms from time to time. The changes will not be retroactive, and the most current version of the Terms, which will always be at twitter.com/tos, will govern our relationship with you. We will try to notify you of material revisions, for example via a service notification or an email to the email associated with your account. By continuing to access or use the Services after those revisions become effective, you agree to be bound by the revised Terms.

            What would you do differently than that?

            1. Treat them like TR treated JP Morgan when he came in to the Oval Office trying to keep him from breaking up Northern Securities.

              1. So you want to use antitrust law against them? What do you hope to achieve with that?

                1. The same thing that happened to Northern Securities, you fat sack of crap.

              2. Instead of using anti-trust to break them up give them incentive to break themselves up. Use the one power congress has that the Supreme Court has recently affirmed and that is the power to tax. Put a progressive tax on all income made from advertising and personal data mining. Give it a high enough floor that startups would not be affected, say on billion. Below this no tax, if a company has 1 to 5 billion in gross income from these sources than a 10 percentage tax on their profits (on top of the normal corp tax) and that number increases with the amount of gross, topping out at 50 percent if they have gross income over 50 billion. That would give them incentive to break themselves up into smaller companies giving the little guys a chance to compete and at the same time discourage them from attempting to force buyouts of their competition as it would increase their tax burden.
                As for Amazon, they have just hurt their future with this little stunt. There are a lot of companies using Amazon Web and Amazon Cloud that are in businesses that could become unpopular with the dems taking control of the government (Oil companies for one). I am betting the CEO’s of these companies are having serious discussions with the CIO’s of how to take back those servers and put them back in house as they could be next on the block. Don’t forget it was not until these services became operational that Amazon really saw any profits, the retail online sales barely turn a profit.

                1. Oh, goody! Social-engineering by taxation!
                  Did you lose your way to VOX?

                2. Goddammit, I don’t know how many times I have to point this out today, but I’ll do it again.

                  These tech firms did not get as big as they did due to plucky entrepeneurs offering a genius new product. They are big as they are BY DESIGN. You really think, especially after Edward Snowden, that the government would just give us this awesome new toy like the internet, and release it into the wild without keeping their thumb on it? Do yourself a favor–look up In-Q-Tel/In-Q-IT on your search engine of choice. That’s the CIA’s tech investment arm that they started up in 1998, specifically to

                  Google got their foundation code from these guys, and Google Earth is based on a CIA-funded project called Keyhole Earth Viewer that Google later picked up for a rock-bottom price. Google has been working with the Chinese government for several years to enforce the CCP’s restriction on internet freedom, and you’re naive if you think the feds here aren’t working with them for the same purpose.

                  Facebook started off as a shitty MySpace knockoff for college kids, before it got the attention of Reid Hoffman, LinkedIn’s founder, who then brought it up to Peter Thiel and Jim Breyer. Thiel’s Palantir had received significant investment from In-Q-Tel, and Breyer is well-known in the MIC community for his ties to the CIA and DoD. Thiel and Breyer’s angel investments were the reason Facebook got a brand-new user interface and opened up to global users. Hoffman is involved with Greylock, which also is tied to the spooks.

                  Amazon’s AWS makes more revenue than its closest three competitors combined. It also has a $600 million contract with the NSA and CIA to provide cloud service.

                  These companies got as big as they did specifically because the government allowed them to be. You really think they’re going to turn around and say, “Oh, we’re going to raise your corporate tax rate now”? Get real. It’s these companies’ competitors that are going to get fucked, not the ones in the Tech Trust.

                  1. *specifically to fund firms whose technology they could exploit.

            2. By continuing to access or use the Services after those revisions become effective, you agree to be bound by the revised Terms.

              Since when can a contract be unilaterally altered? And the only remedy allowed to retain the original contract when they arbitrarily change it is to never access the service again and abandon all the time and energy invested and any intellectual property that I may have posted.

              They got to show me their ads. They got the benefit of any traffic my content brought to their service. They got paid. I get nothing and lose everything I invested in the service.

              It flies in the face of all contract law precedence. It is one-sided, unconscionable and unenforceable. Fuck those guys.

              1. They got to show me their ads. They got the benefit of any traffic my content brought to their service. They got paid. I get nothing and lose everything I invested in the service.

                But that is how social media works *anyway*. You get the benefit of communicating with others on their platform, they retain the IP rights to your creations regardless.

              2. “Since when can a contract be unilaterally altered?”

                Never.
                Don’t agree with the new offering? Tell ’em to shove it an go elsewhere.

          2. “The free market solution is giving users back the ability to enforce the ToS and removing the unconscionable portions of the ToS which allows tech companies to change it at will in violation of all contract law precedence.
            Bullshit.
            Agree of not, or offer your terms back and see if they agree.
            There is no ‘free market’ involved in forcing one of the parties to ‘remove unconscionable portions’. Your opinion is yours and I (among others) don’t care.

    2. Where does he get all that straw??

      Horses go hungry when he really gets going.

  47. Apparently if we tweaked section 230 to prevent twitter from deleting things to their heart’s content, or being selective in their morality driven bans, that would be soviet style repression. Really? A Christian baker wouldn’t agree to bake gay wedding cake, so the wishes of the customer is irrelevant. When I sign up for twitter, I enter a business relationship and if the company makes money on my content, then my rights as consumer should not disappear.

    I don’t have a right to Amazon prime service. But once I sign up, then I have certain rights as a customer and it’s entirely appropriate for the government uphold the business transaction.

    I’m baffled by this inexplicable notion that a company can form a contract in which they hold all powers over the consumer and his properties. What publisher would routinely make random post production edits or cancel entire books without ever consulting with the author? “Yes, we decided to just take out chapter 3because we felt it could incite violence”

    Twitter and Youtube are publishers. The fact that their service is free or that they can’t screen all new entries isn’t our problem. Youtube cannot just demonetize an entire channel for no reason / explanation at all, depriving the content creator of his income and laying to waste days and years of resources and work put into the videos. That’s slightly less insane than the cherished liberartarian notion that foreigners should just jump the borders and work for whatever companies that want to hire them.

  48. How is it that Facebook has become so damned important? Ditto for Twitter. Am I missing the obvious?

    1. Facebook all the “internet” most people use. Twitter is where journalists find the 5 W facts, take the pulse of the American people, and form our opinions for us.

  49. It is a rare day when Angela Merkel and Glenn Greenwald are of the same opinion: Farming out censorship to private enterprise is a lousy idea. You are right to suspect that Glenn wouldn’t underwrite the desire of Angela’s for government to ban hate speech on the social media platform but Angela is right to not wanting to leave the decisions to unaccountable mega-capitalist. Governments both in the US and Europe can be challenged in court, Jack, Mark & Co. cannot.
    Maybe the episode will help to open the eyes of the US public and particularly of right-wing libertarians to the danger of power wielded by private entities. Worshiping property rights blinded them so far. It’s an irony that the authoritarian minions of the Very Stable Genius realized it first, albeit somewhat selectively and only when they dared to touch their cult hero.

  50. It’s an irony that the authoritarian minions of the Very Stable Genius realized it first, albeit somewhat selectively and only when they dared to touch their cult hero.

    Not nearly as ironic as the left-liberal establishment gleefully embracing those same tools.

    1. “It’s an irony that the authoritarian minions of the Very Stable Genius realized it first, albeit somewhat selectively and only when they dared to touch their cult hero.”

      Threaded comments; which TDS-addled shit made that comment?

      1. Sensitive, are we? My post is placed 2 min before Red Rocks. You might want to read my whole comment. Obviously, I stand by my opinion: You don’t have the right to your own facts. It is unacceptable to claim BEFORE an election that it must be rigged if you do not win, and AFTERWARDS insist on fraud when your lawyers drop claims of such before the courts, and having lost 59 out of 60 cases. (The exception in Pennsylvania was not decisive for the outcome.) There can be no excuse neither for elected officials nor for followers of 45 to insist otherwise. It’s NOT a matter of opinion, it’s a willful disregard of the truth. Shame on them!

  51. Facebook said he had “repeatedly” violated “community standards,”

    That’s what’s known in rhetoric as a steaming pile of bullshit. Fuck you, Zuck.

    -jcr

  52. I deleted my facebook account a couple of months ago, when they decided to gag me for referring to the Iranian dictatorship as “goatfuckers”. Facebook can go the way of myspace, geocities, and Orkut, and nothing of value will be lost.

    -jcr

  53. I have read some variation on the statement, “X is a private company so of course they can remove posts and posters whenever they want and it isn’t government censorship and the First Amendment only restrains government so this is fine” about 200 times in the last few months.

    It’s starting to sound desperate.

    1. Sure they can, but that’s not the point. Not every shithead move is illegal, and when FB does something like this, they deserve harsh criticism for it.

      -jcr

      1. Exactly. The dividing line between good and bad is not the same as the dividing line between legal and illegal.

      2. “Sure they can, but that’s not the point. Not every shithead move is illegal, and when FB does something like this, they deserve harsh criticism for it.”

        And a kick in their stock valuation.
        You and me are in the minority here, (pretty sure Ken S and Soldier Medic are in our camp) but A1 means even large corporations (regardless of their size) have freedom on speech, including freedom to block speech. Yes, they have the right to prove they are assholes.
        You would hope that Reason would be promoting other platforms to support that view, but other than ENB noting the de-platforming of one this morning, it’s been crickets.

        1. And a kick in their stock valuation.

          Well, they’ve always been overvalued. Nothing about FB’s business model justifies a P/E of 30. They’re not growing anymore, and they’re vulnerable to being superseded like Geocities, Myspace, and Orkut all were.

          -jcr

        2. Crickets is the new go-to intellectual recourse of Reason writers and editors.

          And to think I used to view Reason as a refreshing dose of somewhat logical, somewhat principled news analysis once a month. *sigh* Simpler times.

          To TheJacket, Sullum, Mangu, all you fuckers, I quote Capt. Mal Reynolds: “Well, my days of not respectin’ your integrity are sure comin’ to a middle.”

  54. BIG TECH IS REFUSING TO GIVE A PLATFORM TO CERTAIN PEOPLE BASED ON THEIR POLITICS BUT THEY AREN’T THE GOVERNMENT SO THIS IS FINE IT’S ALL FINE, SURE THE HOUSE IS ON FIRE, BUT IT’S NOT AN ILLEGAL FIRE SO WE’RE ALL FINE THIS IS PERFECTLY OKAY NO PROBLEMS.

    1. “The house is, at this time, largely unburned, so…”

  55. Liability protection 230 is govt giving special treatment while also allowing said firm to censor customers. FB can censor anyone they want but they need to lose the 230 liability protection.

    1. As I understand it; 230 only protects hosts from poster liability. In that sense; Amazon executed their own violation of section 230; by holding Parlor responsible for poster liability. Is that the kind of POWER you want the federal government to have?

      1. Does it matter if they act as one to secure each others’ power??

        Are you going to pretend that there’s a difference between Big Tech and the DNC??

  56. “it ought to explain the new rules in terms that are easily understandable and equally applied” Ha!!!

    Their normal T&C are not “easily understandable” Why would you expect their content moderation policy to be so?

    1. So are the conditions to be written at such a level that you understand them?
      How many pages of not-easily-understandable rules are required for that, and why do you assume the government agencies tasked with that issue are actually dedicated to the outcome you prefer?
      Seems your solution is *more* government control over those platforms; always a good solution.

  57. Ron can go picket some women’s clinics like a real man.

  58. I feel like I’m having a stroke watching you libertarians finally discover the wonders of socialism when your stupid little ox gets gored. And it’s not even your ox, it’s the Trumpists’. Speaking to any libertarians who might be left here.

    “The spirit of free speech.” Give me a break. Name the last time any single one of you advocated for Twitter doing something for the public good against its own interests. Or any private company. Last I checked, “the spirit” is always and forever secondary to “corporate rights to fuck you however which way they please.”

    1. “I feel like I’m having a stroke watching you libertarians finally discover the wonders of socialism when your stupid little ox gets gored…”

      We’ve yet to discover the ‘wonders of socialism’; no one has yet proposed starving millions, shitstain.
      Perhaps you missed this:
      Ken Shultz
      January 10 at 11.14AM
      “…We often think Tony, Shrike, and ChemJeff are being dishonest–especially when they don’t seem to learn anything from having their arguments shredded and smeared in their faces everyday for years. But the fact that they don’t seem to learn anything–knowledge wise or in terms of critical thinking–may be consistent with the hypothesis that they’re just not that bright. And we shouldn’t necessarily assume that Binion, Boehm, or Britschgi are fundamentally different from them.
      Maybe the reason they try to make us feel is because they’re incapable of making us think. It is beyond their capabilities…”
      Ken proposes that it’s not that you’re dishonest as you so often seem to be, it’s that you are simply too stupid to understand the argument.
      Nothing suggests otherwise.

      1. Did Ken agree to be your boyfriend?

        1. Nope; guy just offered a very good explanation for the bullshit from shitstains like you; do you somehow assume agreement constitutes a ‘boyfriend? If so, you’ve confirmed his analysis; the inability to think.
          But I have to ask, did your mommy agree to make sure you never had to take responsibility for your stupidity, assholishness and inability to ‘think’? If not your mommy, who was it that suggested responsibility and thinking were burdens you never had to bare?

  59. Facebook will begin removing all content that mentions the phrase “stop the steal,” a full 69 days after Election Day

  60. Everybody get on Facebook and Twitter and search back to the guillotine memes and breathlessly shared news stories from the summer protests, and report them as content inciting violence.

    1. Won’t matter.

      I believe one of Kaepernick’s tweets flatly promotion more mostly peaceful protests is still up and, of course, loved by the left-wing.

      Rules are for us, not them.

      1. And that’s the worst problem. Why bother arguing about the rights of companies, and contracts and fairness and all that blahdeblah when they are now free to just make up any bullshit they want and ban anyone. Charge anyone. Hysterically declare normies are “domestic terrorists”.

        I SAW the President’s comments that Twitter took down before banning him for “inciting violence”. He told the folks to go home, peacefully. But then the posts were removed, replaced by their tortured bullshit justifications for doing so.

        It isn’t 230, it isn’t fairness, it isn’t Trump, it isn’t contractual agreements between FB, Twitter, YT, etc. that are at the heart of this very serious problem. It’s the complete absence of any acknowledgement of REALITY. The lack of any single standard, principle or policy that would be applied evenly.

        It. Is. a. COUP, and it’s done, it’s over. And people like Tony and ChemJeff and whatever other fucktarded knobpolishing shitknuckles cheering it on think they’ll be happy living under the enlightened bootheel of critical social justice. They won’t, and that, at least, provides some small comfort.

  61. That was no mistake, he criticized left wing censorship. That gets your account shut down.

  62. 1) Insert thoughts and/or feelings here.

    2) Buy gold.

  63. It’s funny how all of these “mistakes” only go one way…

    I don’t recall anyone with left of center politics “mistakenly” banned/purged/silenced on the Facebooks.

  64. ” ‘The justifications given for the silencing of wide swaths of public opinion made no sense and the process was anything but transparent.’

    Those are valid criticisms, keeping in mind of course that Trump had just used his Twitter page to promote a rally that turned into a riot.”

    “Keeping in mind”, a thing that never happened, unless your reading comprehension is clouded by ORANGEMANBAD.

  65. “The president’s use of social media to spread obvious lies and stir up violence may have deserved a digital sledgehammer.”

    Of course, Boehm’s addled brain linked to Sullum’s post, of which the byline was:

    “Under federal law, incitement to riot does not include “advocacy of ideas” or “expression of belief” unless it endorses violence, which Trump did not do.

    Talk about an own goal.

  66. Look at all the conservatives whining for free stuff.

  67. I’m seeing a lot of logically error-prone thinking on these issues. I believe Reason ought to be more actively and aggressively covering these issues with social media empires.

    As Alexey Navalny correctly identifies, here social media executives are acting on behalf of (shall we say colluding with!?!) the state – which at this point is dominated by one party, the Democratic Party. They are intervening for political reasons, and in response to political suggestions. In that sense, it is in early form of quasi-fascistic behavior.

    It ought to be roundly denounced because it is politically motivated, censorious behavior by firms that represent the vast majority of the social media market. Moreover, it exemplifies a very troubling culture in which folks increasingly devalue individual rights. How we respond here will impact the nature of our individual rights 5y and 10y hence.

  68. Same As Trump, in as much as he didn’t behave well on social platforms, but his Social media accounts shouldn’t have been blocked.

  69. No one has a right to a Facebook account, yet Facebook sets the Terms and Conditions, so therefore in contracts must be held to a higher standard. If someone agrees to and does not violate those Terms and Conditions, they should never be blocked or banned. I would suggest their should be a monetary penalty, for Facebook violating their own Terms and Conditions.

  70. It was intentional. It may have been done by some low-level lefturd who just happened to have the access to lock him out, but that doesn’t happen accidentally.

    -jcr

  71. A legal question from a non lawyer – I keep reading that no one has a right to (for example) a facebook page. On the other hand I think everyone has a right to go into say a grocery store and purchase food ie one couldn’t turn someone away at the door just because of the color of their skin. Could one (black or white or ….) be turned away from a grocery store for wearing a MAGA hat or a BLM t-shirt? What’s the legal difference? Is it virtual presence vs actual physical presence?

    1. “ClarkL
      January.13.2021 at 1:20 pm
      There is a very interesting supreme court case that deals with the rights of a company that owns a town square to limit speech. Marsh vs Alabama. You should hear quite a bit about this in the near future. If not I will wonder why. The ruling was that a company that owned a company town could not limit speech in that town. Here is a link to the ruling

      http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/326/501

      “ The more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it.”

      In other words, we carry our rights onto private property.

  72. “You should hear quite a bit about this in the near future. If not I will wonder why. The ruling was that a company that owned a company town could not limit speech in that town.”

    If not, we will all know why, except for the blind or rabidly partisan.

    1. Crickets

  73. As was mentioned above, Facebook, which has yet to impress me, doesn’t “owe” anyone a platform, but these “mistakes” strike me as curious.

Comments are closed.