Reason Roundup

Is Microsoft 'Out To Get Conservatives'? And Is That Jim Jordan's Business?

Plus: Biden to back bill ending crack/cocaine sentencing disparity, the truth about tech startup creation, and more...

|

Jim Jordan's flimsy crusade against Microsoft. When House Democrats earlier this month unveiled a new package of economic interventions and tech-company meddling under the guise of antitrust law, Ohio Republican Rep. Jim Jordan decried the effort as "a marriage of big tech and big government" that would "make the situation even worse." Now, Jordan is taking the same aggressive and expansive antitrust attitude against Microsoft.

In a June 21 letter, Jordan—ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee—accuses Microsoft of being "out to get conservatives." 

But his theory of how Microsoft is "out to get conservatives" largely rests on a few anecdotes about Microsoft-owned LinkedIn suppressing posts about Joe Biden's son Hunter, recent executive orders, or COVID-19. And the letter doesn't bother providing the actual content of posts that were supposedly unfairly removed, nor the circumstances of their removal. (Further examination reveals they're not all what they seem; one of Jordan's examples links to a post on The Volokh Conspiracy—which is hosted by Reason—explaining that while one of Stewart Baker's LinkedIn posts about Hunter Biden was removed, multiple others on the same subject were allowed. "I'm guessing that a lame algorithm is the real culprit," writes Baker.) Nor does Jordan indicate the prevalence of such so-called censorship or how it compares to LinkedIn's removal of non-conservative content. Jordan's argument is simply that Microsoft may have made a handful of content moderation decisions he doesn't like, so federal meddling is warranted.

Jordan also blasts Microsoft for allegedly taking "aggressive editorial control over content on its platforms" and excluding certain Bing search engine results to please China. He also complains about an opt-in feature for Microsoft Word users that will suggest "inclusive language." None of these things come remotely close to being antitrust violations (nor illegal in any other capacity).

Jordan falls into the same trap so many Republican and Democratic anti-tech zealots do these days: mistaking his personal or political desires for how companies should do business with something the federal government in a free market and First Amendment-beholden society has the right to demand.

Even if Microsoft was explicitly removing certain conservative content from LinkedIn, it would have nothing to do with antitrust law. Nor would the company be running afoul of the federal communications law concerning legal liability for user-generated posts. Deciding what types of content will and won't be allowed on a website is neither illegally anti-competitive behavior nor barred by Section 230 of federal communications law. In fact, it's expressly protected by Section 230. It's also shielded by the First Amendment, under which the government can't force a private company to platform any particular type of speech.

This doesn't mean folks must simply accept unfair treatment by tech companies. Consumers can stop using private platforms whose speech policies and practices they don't like. They can call for boycotts and otherwise campaign against them. Or they can campaign to get them to change their policies. What they can't do is use the government to force their hands. (See also: Masterpiece Cakeshop, which was back in court recently.)

The bottom line is Jordan's insistence that Microsoft turn over information about its content moderation and other business practices cannot be justified on antitrust grounds nor by any other reasonable measure. Federal officials don't get to just demand that private citizens or companies answer to them about their First Amendment–protected decisions.

Jordan is right about one thing, however: it is strange that Microsoft has been so absent from today's overreaching antitrust revival. Though Microsoft was the bête noire of antitrust zealots in the 1990s and early '00s—for more on how Microsoft was targeted by antitrust regulators of yore, see my recent Reason feature on the bipartisan war on big tech companies—it has largely escaped the wrath of today's crusaders against tech companies.

Back then, the company had cultural cache and rising power. Today, it's still a powerhouse but it doesn't stir culture war sentiment the same way, say, Facebook and Google do. That it's largely been exempt from recent antitrust crusades speaks more to the highly political (and performative) nature of such crusades than anything else. In a just world, however, none of the tech companies under fire would be subject to such nonsense. Instead, Jordan seems eager to even the playing field by putting Microsoft under the same unwarranted political persecution as some of its competitors.


FREE MINDS

Biden moves to undo part of his disastrous drug war legacy:


FREE MARKETS

Has technology startup creation "sharply declined"? Members of Congress trying to push new antitrust laws keep saying so. But actual data suggests otherwise:


QUICK HITS

• A new report from the Government Accountability Office suggests the 2018 "anti-sex trafficking" law FOSTA has done little to actually combat sex trafficking. A thread:

• 150 million people in the U.S. are now fully vaccinated against COVID-19, the White House says.

• The delta variant of COVID-19 is now rapidly spreading here.

• A new Department of Justice proposal "encourages states to take away people's Second Amendment rights based on little more than bare allegations," warns Reason's Jacob Sullum.

• Department of all-politicians-are-hypocrites: "Many of the Senate Democrats who are now calling for changes to the legislative filibuster expressed different views on the 60-vote threshold when Democrats found themselves in the minority over the last six years."

• "The NCAA is not above the law," rules the Supreme Court.

• The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit backs California's assault weapon ban. "In an order Monday, a three-judge panel on the federal appeals court issued a stay of US District Judge Roger Benitez's order earlier this month that overturned California's three-decade old assault weapons ban," notes CNN.

• How an equal pay law in Colorado is backfiring.

NEXT: Against National Unity

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. In a June 21 letter, Jordan—ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee—accuses Microsoft of being “out to get conservatives.”

    By putting its microchips in them, but they’re too savvy to get the jab.

    1. Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than DD D regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
      on this page…..VISIT HERE

    2. Look, Fist, I got “two jabs” of Pfizer and I still use DuckDuckGo and the Firefox browser. The water is just fine!

  2. But his theory of how Microsoft is “out to get conservatives” largely rests on a few anecdotes about Microsoft-owned LinkedIn suppressing posts about Joe Biden’s son Hunter, recent executive orders, or COVID-19.

    What does the MS in MSNBC stand for?

    1. Hint: An early proposal for the moniker was “MISSORMRSNBC”.

    2. Marxist Scum.

    3. Mere rumors of tales of anectdotes. Section 230 of the Constitition was passed to protect free speech, so we cant chamge Scetion 230. Justices Pinchai, Bezos, Zuckerberg and Dorsey have all calles it abSuperprecedent
      It cant be changed, because it wasbpassed with good intentions
      And thats how laws and governmwnts work. Libertarians dont complain about how laws hurt people in ways theyvwerent meant to. Only icky Federalist White Nationalist Society racists do that.

      1. gotdammit having to use a phone because the popup vids here lock up an ipad

        1. Makes just as much sense as your posts usually do

          1. He’s not wrong. Reason has hammers and video bullshit that have to be clicked off after every page refresh. Among other things.

    4. Maddow Spews Numerous Bullshit Conspiracies.

      There’s a good Greenwald writeup on how MSNBC lawyers had to admit that Maddow’s stuff is crackpot crazy to avoid a defamation lawsuit, and that none of her watchers would ever believe what she says anyway. Later Fox had to do that with Carlson.

    5. Among the long forgotten history of MSNBC, for about the first week the anchors had to interact with an on-screen generated character. My fuzzy memory is it was an alien similar to The Martian from the Warner Brothers cartoons. Microsoft was very proud of their ability to create a real time animation. I don’t think NBC thought treating your audience like 4-year-olds was helpful if you’re trying to be treated seriously.

      “Conservative” radio host Michael Savage also briefly had a weekend show on MSNBC

      1. That’s OK, MSNBC doesn’t take journalism seriously either.

        As for Michael The Savage Weiner, he shouldn’t to be taken seriously either. He got booted off MSNBC because he called one of his callers a “Sodomite” and told him to “catch AIDS and die!” So fuck this guy too.

        Christopher “The Hitch” Hitchens was the only great voice on MSNBC and he was too smart for them.

  3. Biden admin plans to endorse specific legislation Tues that would end disparity in sentences between crack and powder cocaine offenses that Pres. Biden helped create decades ago…

    The president is senile. He’s forgetting everything he stands for.

  4. I would be in favor of a 100% revenue tax on all business dealings occurring in China.

    1. Let’s show them a little American Socialism for a change!

      1. “for a change”

        Haha, good one!

  5. Has technology startup creation “sharply declined”? Members of Congress trying to push new antitrust laws keep saying so. But actual data suggests otherwise…

    Everyone wants their innovations to get bought up and suppressed by Silicon Valley.

    1. Not actually sarcasm.

    2. If they are in decline, I suggest they look at Dodd-Frank first.

  6. A new report from the Government Accountability Office suggests the 2018 “anti-sex trafficking” law FOSTA has done little to actually combat sex trafficking.

    Maybe the GAO might want to investigate if that was the actual aim in the first place.

    1. Of course the law did little to actually combat sex trafficking.

      There is no such thing as sex trafficking./Reason

      1. There was just recently a big story about some foreign gangs that were just holding onto passports for the women so they wouldn’t lose them.

        1. Wow, that’s mighty nice of them.

      2. Have you ever considered that maybe making the movement of people illegal creates an illicit market for such things? When have we ever banned something that didn’t lead to a whole slew of unintended consequences?

        1. A country of 350 million people doesn’t present enough of a market forcing a market to import foreigners? Did you think through your assertion?

          1. I did. It’s quite simple, you restrict drugs and you make druglords and gangsters rich. You restrict immigration, you make human traffickers rich. The question you should be asking yourself is which is worse, allowing people to come to the US to work or to restrict that to the point that human traffickers bring people here to work.

            It’s clear that people are willing to risk violating the law and hiring coyotes in order to come to the US. That’s the market force. No amount of laws is going to curb that. Just like no amount of laws is going to curb drug abuse. We’re losing the war on immigration.

            1. The comment was about sex workers Leo. So you have a dishonest switch in your premise.

              On top of that you once again ignore reality and the welfare state. There were 5 million open jobs last quarter, US workers filled 500k. Labor participation is in shambles. But you blame it on not enough foreign workers instead of free money to stay home.

              Not sure why you live in a world other than reality in some of your analysis.

              1. I thought that sex trafficking was one of the scare tactics cited against immigration.

                I don’t blame anything on not enough foreign workers. I’m certainly not in favor of extending unemployment or welfare benefits to any foreign workers. And we should drastically cut it for Americans.

        2. Haha. Funny that an appeal to open borders would un ironically bemoan “unintended consequences”.

          You funny guy.

          1. Hey buddy!

            So like are you um still mad at me?

            I was thinking we could watch the South Park where Garrison chases his penis around on a mouse and Cartman is the guy from stand and deliver?

            1. Lmao spaz 😀

            2. Or we could watch the episode ‘All About Mormons’.

          2. Here’s the difference. Accepting freedom also means accepting the consequences of individuals making free decisions. As long as they don’t restrict your rights, you accept not to restrict the rights of others.

            Appealing to government to restrict freedom has consequences that are forced upon us at the point of a gun and almost always “remedied” also at the point of a gun.

            It’s almost like there should be a political philosophy with that distinction at its core.

            1. The funny thing about idealism that you dont understand is it requires everyone to believe and be motivated the exact same way.

              Your ideal world will never exist as a large percentage of workers will always scheme for free benefits.

              1. The issue isn’t that people scheme for free benefits. The issue is that the system exists such that free benefits can be schemed for.

                Just because our system is broken doesn’t mean that we should continue to give up freedoms to government. “Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.” – Ronald Reagan

      3. Need a new word. “Sex trafficking” has been abused so badly that it is useless as a distinction between voluntary sex work and people being forced to do things.

    2. Well Why the fbck does that matter? It was passed to combat sex trafficking. That is what the people who passed it said about it.
      Just like Section 230. It was passed to promote Free Speech. We cant change it. If we chabge it, Big Tech might censor someone. If we change FOSTA, someone might get trafficked.
      I cant beliwve thw nerve of Liz wantimg to change laws just because they dont do what they say they will ans trample other peoples freedoms

  7. “I’m guessing that a lame algorithm is the real culprit,” writes Baker.)

    In the near future, everyone will accept that algorithms are sentient beings.

    1. Yep. They evolved from computer glitches.

    2. Near future? They’ve got the vote now.

      1. They’re such an important constituency that they managed swing a presidential election.

        1. I’m not sure if you actually believe this nonsense or if it’s another lie? You lie so goddamn much.

          1. No, he doesn’t. You’re the bad guy here. Not us.

            1. I’ll second those remarks.

  8. OMG! Absolutely earth-shattering news, and I cannot believe ENB missed it.

    There. Is. Now. An. Openly. Gay. NFL. Player.

    This is the top headline at ESPN.com. It’s obviously far more important than some NCAA ruling.

    1. But which bathroom do they use?

      1. At that size, any one they want – – – – – – – – – –

    2. I remember when the goal was for people to not care who was gay or not.

      1. But, Jesse — how can we *celebrate* if we don’t *know*?

        1. And the we includes everyone whether you care or not.

        2. And how do we know who to shun if there isnt enough conspicuous celebrating?

        3. exactly, we need an excuse to get a cake

          1. Let’s see if we can compel Masterpiece Cakeshop to bake a Happy Gay Football cake.

        4. Privilege is getting special treatment simply because you display certain arbitrary markers of identity, and the solution is give other people special treatment because they display certain arbitrary markers of identity.

      2. 3 teams in 5 years. Sounds like somebody trying to hold on to a roster spot for a change.

  9. 150 million people in the U.S. are now fully vaccinated against COVID-19, the White House says.

    Sinisterly steepling its hands as it says it.

  10. The delta variant of COVID-19 is now rapidly spreading here.

    Lockdown 2.0, baby!

    1. Just like Hollywood, the feds can’t resist crappy sequels for captive audiences.

    2. SleepyJoe is failing at stopping the virus.

    3. Only the people who won’t get vaccinations have anything to fear from the new variants. The vac’s work quite well at preventing hospitalizations and severe illness from the variants.

      So, Darwin’s law applies for most of the anti-vaxxers. There should still be outreach for people who just can’t get a few hours off their work or have long travel distances to get a vaccine.

  11. A new Department of Justice proposal “encourages states to take away people’s Second Amendment rights based on little more than bare allegations…”

    Then they were never really your rights in the first place.

    1. Excellent point.

  12. Department of all-politicians-are-hypocrites…

    More like opportunists.

  13. Good listen. Panel of experts, including Prof Volokh, discuss silicon valley and concepts such as common carrier. Prof Volokh breaks down why common arrier may be the route to go in reigning in censorship from powerful, government minded silicon valley corporations.

    https://fedsoc.org/events/free-speech-and-compelled-speech-first-amendment-challenges-to-a-marketplace-of-ideas

    1. Sounds like a conspiracy to me.

  14. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit backs California’s assault weapon ban.

    I can’t believe it, he said dryly.

  15. Video of CSPAN discussion between Matt Welch and Alex Marlow where Welch refuses to call the fine people hoax a hoax. Despite the fact he admits Trump literally said “no, not the neo nazis” right after the statement was made. Refuses to acknowledge many of those protesting were against pulling down statues, not neo nazis. Narrative before facts for good ole matt welch.

    https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2021/06/21/reasons-matt-welch-confronts-alex-marlow-with-debunked-charlottesville-hoax-on-c-span/

      1. Always a classic.

      2. Scott Adams once said something to the effect of leftists don’t like guns because they know that if they had one they would use it to commit a crime.

    1. Yeah fuck him

    2. Imagine carrying water for a fat, traitorous, trust fund baby of a conman for going on 6 years.

      1. Joe Biden?

        1. No no, dol thinks it is natural that a presidents coked out son can transition to a painter selling paintings for 500k per after just 1 year. Yes, he defended that.

          He still thinks trump and Russia worked together.

          He pushes every partisan anonymously sourced story as fact. Then claims others are the conspiracy theorists.

          1. After his lucrative career in Ukrainian oil while his father was VP. After his lucrative career in the banking sector while his father was the Senator from Delaware.

            Imagine how many more lucrative careers he could have had if he wasn’t a crack head?!

      2. It makes you want to deny the possibility that CoVid-19 was leaked from a lab.

      3. Or bill Clinton? Who literally sold nuclear guidence tech to the chinks for campaign money.

      4. The leftist “imagine…” trope is so revealing.
        Poses fantasy as higher priority than reality, fundamentally passive-aggressive, and an implicit appeal to some vague collectivist authority.
        Feminine in all the worst, and none of the virtuous, ways.

      5. Imagine being so ignorant and partisan that this was your take away.

      6. You’re such a bad joke.

    3. Welch is scum

      1. He is the most moronic person on the fifth column podcast, the only time he is not the worst is when they have a mindless super left retard like Harry seigal as a guest.

  16. I knew the Biden Era would be awesome. I just didn’t know it would be THIS awesome.

    The 10 richest Americans have gained a combined $150 billion this year.

    Since Koch / Reason libertarianism exists to serve the wealthiest people on the planet, we can make a strong case that Biden is already the most libertarian President ever.

    #InDefenseOfBillionaires

    1. Big tech and the Fortune 500 put a mindblowing record of $2.9 trillion back into their shareholders pockets just in April.

      It was totally worth the lockdowns and the resulting collapse of small and medium sized businesses.

      Never in the history of amassing wealth was so much taken by so few from so many.

  17. Former eco terrorist and BLM nominee lied to congress during her confirmation hearing when she stated she had never been targeted by law enforcement for an investigation.

    https://justthenews.com/accountability/watchdogs/watchdog-calls-investigation-whether-biden-nominee-gave-false-testimony

    She was targeted and granted immunity for ratting out her eco group.

    1. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse is facing new scrutiny over his decades-long membership in an allegedly all-white private beach club, as he bills himself as a progressive and prominent critic of “systemic racism” — dismissing membership based on race as “a long tradition in Rhode Island.”

      Imagine if someone said it’s “a long tradition in Alabama.”

      1. Ahem. Formerly named the State of Rhode Island and Providence *Plantations*.

    2. It’s not like this is anything revealing. White liberals don’t like living in “diverse” neighborhoods, either.

      Every Democrat-voting white person should be forced to live in a ghetto or barrio for five years. If they manage to make it out alive, they can then make the argument for why Great Society programs would benefit these places.

      1. I lived in bad neighborhoods for a few years(bad neighborhoods in Portland are nothing compared to other big cities. One has since become trendy gentrified neighborhood). One was the Latino part of town. There were more white troublemakers than non-white ones from my limited experience.

        Be honest: you just hate non straight white Christians?

        I’m pretty sure you’re Mormon. It would explain why you’re such a terrible person.

        1. *non-christians

        2. I grew up in the black part of town.

          You’re just a racist fascist traitor Red.

          If you were not Mormon you would of made that clear by now.

          Pervert nazi!

          1. You read like a parody. You never grew up on the black side of anything.
            I’m guessing the only time your lily white ass has actually been close to a black man, is when you hire one as a male hooker because you want to try something “exotic”.

            1. The area I grew up in was historically the black part of Portland. It’s been gentrified over the past 20 years, but when I was growing up it was the black part of town.

              I also lived where many blacks moved to when the cost to live in N and NE Portland got too high. It’s the Latin part of town.

              Now compared to other cities it’s not diverse or dangerous. However it’s much more diverse than Prince George, Kelowna, Cranbrook or wherever the fuck you bigoted ass lives.

            2. It’s so comforting to know that a horrible human being like you doesn’t like me.

              You’re so hateful, bigoted and backwards. Just like your Mormon pals.

              1. And you are a creepy, antisemitic, racist pervert who disgusts everyone here, so what’s your point?

                Being disliked by the comment sections closest analogy to Mussolini is a badge of honour.

                1. How have I been racist?

                  That’s rhetorical. I know it’s just another one of your lies.

                  My offer still stands for anyone who can cite me saying the anti Semitic crap you claim. I’ll quit posting on here.
                  As far as pervert:
                  The crap I said to red was to give him a taste of his own medicine.
                  He’s the one who worships a pervert. You’re buddies with pervert worshippers.

                  You’re a lying bigot!

                  1. I think you keep asking nardz about something relating to house niggers or something like that.

                    Apart from that, you’re so pathetically sad to even justify yourself. like, i mean, you say “The crap I said to red was to give him a taste of his own medicine.” Uhm, like dude, have you ever noticed you have no reputation to defend here? 😀

        3. The hicklib pederast lives in one of the whitest cities in America.

          1. So you’re Mormon Red?

            1. The hicklib pederast concedes.

              1. Concede to what?

                You’re the pussy who won’t hold up your part of the deal.

                God damn fucking Mormon piece of shit

                1. The hicklib pederast is too afraid to travel to Denver to carry out his threats in person.

                  1. If I’m ever in Denver you’ll know.

                    Your real address?

                    You’re a gutless coward like all Mormons!

                    1. The hicklib pederast is too gutless to come to 3400 Albion Street or unmask his email to put his money where his keyboard is. Taking on a grown adult is certainly different than the children he fantasizes about mutiliating.

                    2. You don’t live at an Islamic center.

                    3. Come by and find out.

      2. Ha that would be halarious

      3. Progressives are generally the most sheltered, privileged people I know. The exceptions are people who act very conservative in their personal life because of life experience, but have a disconnect with their politics because they equate voting “Democrat” with being a good person.

        1. The exceptions are people who act very conservative in their personal life because of life experience, but have a disconnect with their politics because they equate voting “Democrat” with being a good person.

          Heh, sounds like my sister-in-law. She’s a Bernie voter, but she’s become notably more conservative the last couple of years, at least on social issues.

      4. I live on the forward edge of gentrification. The liberals around here will have their car broken into, their daughter harassed, their lawn shit upon and will still go to the city council and lobby on behalf of their “unhoused neighbors”. You know, the people threatening unaccompanied women, stealing their stuff, and shitting on their lawns. And then they’ll accuse you of lacking compassion when you point out all the victims of the “unhoused” or simple ghetto trash.

        1. And then they’ll accuse you of lacking compassion when you point out all the victims of the “unhoused” or simple ghetto trash.

          That’s how the gaslighting works for people who believe in “systemic ________”. Everything is the victim’s fault if they’re considered part of the “ingrained racist power structure.” But these same motherfuckers deliberately parked themselves in a majority white neighborhood “because of the good schools.” Yeah, we all know what that phrase means.

          1. ^Every progressive I know.

      5. “Every Democrat-voting white person should be forced to live in a ghetto or barrio for five years…”

        Just make them pull their kids out of Sidwell Friends, and send them to public school in D.C…

        1. Tim Wise, the “fellow white people” race huckster, lives in one of the whitest neighborhoods in Nashville.

          Ignore what these people say. Watch what they do.

      6. Heard another gunfight in the the middle of the night while up at my friend’s house in ATL this weekend.
        Fortunately, this one sounded like it was 3 or 4 blocks away instead of 100 yards.

    3. In all fairness if the Rhode island club let in one black person, then they would have to let in all of the black people in Rhode Island! Then there would be 3 black people in the club

      1. ^true^

    4. I didn’t know country club Democrat was a thing, but it makes sense

  18. I’m glad reason is openly pro fascism. As long as it is major multi billion dollar corporations attacking individual freedoms, everything is fine. Ignore the wealth gained for these companies by getting exemptions from lockdowns last year. ENB is finally being open about it.

    1. Your proggy arguments for why we can’t handle freedom and need the government to babysit us don’t get any better the more you repeat them

      1. Youre statist rationalization is duly noted.

      2. Pretty sure JesseAz is not a progressive and that his post was tongue in cheek. You need to improve your reading comprehension.

    2. Government strong arming of major corporations so that they do the bidding of the Government is about as close as we’ve ever gotten to the technical definition of Fascism.

      Mean Tweets <> Fascism

  19. Biden admin plans to endorse specific legislation Tues that would end disparity in sentences between crack and powder cocaine offenses that Pres. Biden helped create decades ago, according to ppl with knowledge of the situation.

    And was already part of the 2018 First Step act..

    1. Joe Biden was also very aggressive about demanding mandatory federal minimum sentences. C-SPAN has a good video collection of all of it.

  20. The delta variant of COVID-19 is now rapidly spreading here. is this the one with only a 99.997 survival rate?

  21. “The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit backs California’s assault weapon ban. “In an order Monday, a three-judge panel on the federal appeals court issued a stay of US District Judge Roger Benitez’s order earlier this month that overturned California’s three-decade old assault weapons ban,” notes CNN.”

    I bet my California family this would happen or CA would simply ignore Benitez. Fucking shell game.

    1. Is your CA family Mormon like you?

      1. Like your Mormon family?

  22. “Even if Microsoft was explicitly removing certain conservative content from LinkedIn, it would have nothing to do with antitrust law.”

    I think ENB really believes this, but she shouldn’t.

    In October of 2020, House Democrats published a plan to break up various big tech companies in various ways. The lead author of that plan was Lina Kahn, who was just confirmed by the Senate to be commissioner at the FTC last week. The FTC brings antitrust actions against companies–they’re already suing to break up Facebook using their antitrust powers right now. Here’s an excerpt from Lina Kahn’s report, a quote about why they need to break up “monopolies” like Microsoft.

    “Venture capitalists are less likely to fund startups that compete against monopolies’ core products … As a startup investor, I see this often. For example, I will meet yet another founder who wants to disrupt Microsoft’s LinkedIn. They will have a clever plan to build a better professional social network. I always pass on the investment. It is nearly impossible to overcome the monopoly LinkedIn enjoys. It is but one example of an innovation kill zone.”

    —-Democrats’ plan to break up Big Tech companies, p 48 of 450

    https://judiciary.house.gov/uploadedfiles/competition_in_digital_markets.pdf?

    Is there any question about them wanting to force Microsoft to spin off LinkedIn?

    Elsewhere in that document–written by the newly minted commissioner of the FTC–(which was already suing to break up Facebook on antitrust grounds), she justifies breaking these companies up because they tolerate “misinformation” on their platforms.

    The belief that Microsoft’s behavior has nothing to do with the threats directed at them and other big tech companies for tolerating “misinformation” on their platforms is simply absurd. It’s even worse than arguing that McCarthy’s red scare didn’t have a chilling effect on people who were afraid they might be called in front of his committee–because in the case of the Democrats’ antitrust actions, they’re being perfectly explicit about wanting to break these companies up over their toleration for “misinformation” on their platforms.

    There is no question but that free speech, private property, and freedom of association are all important principles that need to be defended by libertarians and capitalists, but Facebook and Microsoft limiting the speech of their users because they’re under threat of being broken up by the government–because they tolerate “misinformation” on their platforms–is a terrible, terrible example of freedom from government coercion. I believe ENB think she’s defending free speech, private property, and freedom of the press, but she’s actually carrying water for censorship through rank intimidation by government.

    1. I don’t think the politician actually care if they split up these monopolies, they just want more money from them like the first time they threatened to split up microsoft

      1. This. Bill Gates had no PAC and was apolitical, so Clinton had Janet Reno shake him down real good

      2. They want to control speech. They really do.

        Progressives want to control what people believe, and they want to do it through controlling what people can say about each other.

        1. Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it

          1. Doubleplusgood comment.

        2. I should probably add that this is what Critical Race Theory is about. Hell, the Critical Theory that CRT is based on is explicitly about controlling what people believe as a means to progressive change.

          “[Critical Theory] argues that social problems are influenced and created more by societal structures and cultural assumptions than by individual and psychological factors. Maintaining that ideology is the principal obstacle to human liberation . . .

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory

          The Democrats are a little more pragmatic when it comes to “misinformation” because that’s more about trying to win elections by preventing people (up to and including the president) from introducing issues that are bad for Democrats and having them taken seriously by voters.

          The reason they want social media to censor opposition to abortion like it’s misogyny, censor support for a border wall as xenophobia, censor opposition to gay marriage as homophobia, and censor opposition to affirmative action and reparations as racist is because they’re seeking to bring about a better society by controlling what we think and what we can talk about.

          That’s why they want to assert control over “misinformation” and hate speech on social media. It’s more about power than money.

    2. And your solution to the problem of Democratic pressure on social media sites?

      1. Have the government use some of that force they’ve been hoarding, naturally.

        1. Taking away a special protection isn’t force, no matter how many times you try to say it is.

          1. Hey Designated Authoritarian Dictatorshit-Driver, with you and your “special protection”…

            Hey Designated Authoritarian… No matter HOW many times you tell your “Big Lie”, it is NOT true! You’re part of the mob, aren’t you, gangster? For a small fee, you tell small businesses that you will “protect” them… From you and your mob! Refute the below, ye greedy authoritarian who wants to shit all over the concept of private property!

            Look, I’ll make it pretty simple for simpletons. A prime argument of enemies of Section 230 is, since the government does such a HUGE favor for owners of web sites, by PROTECTING web site owners from being sued (in the courts of Government Almighty) as a “publisher”, then this is an unfair treatment of web site owners! Who SHOULD (lacking “unfair” section 230 provisions) be able to get SUED for the writings of OTHER PEOPLE! And punished by Government Almighty, for disobeying any and all decrees from Government Almighty’s courts, after getting sued!

            In a nutshell: Government Almighty should be able to boss around your uses of your web site, because, after all, Government Almighty is “protecting” you… From Government Almighty!!!

            Wow, just THINK of what we could do with this logic! Government Almighty is “protecting” you from getting sued in matters concerning who you chose to date or marry… In matters concerning what line of work you chose… What you eat and drink… What you read… What you think… Therefore, Government Almighty should be able to boss you around on ALL of these matters, and more! The only limits are the imaginations and power-lusts of politicians!

        2. Reading what DOL and White Knight post in response to Ken is like waiting patiently for the mentally handicapped kid to finish his sentence. We’re not quite sure what they’re trying to say but it’s not socially acceptable to pick on retards.

          1. Wow, what literary talent and rapier wit! Let’s see if I can match or exceed it, with some OTHER brilliantly smart comments that I have created just now!

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

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

            1. Struck a nerve did I?

        3. If you actually understood market collusion you’d be able to have a semi honest conversation.

      2. I know Dee has muted me, so she didn’t see how stupid she looked yesterday talking about the cake baking. In response to the idea that right wing trolls could respond by requesting that a feminist baker make an anti-feminist cake, she posted a link to a story that she said indicated:

        “ It didn’t work out because the lesbian baker went ahead and made the homophobic cake.”

        But the very story she linked indicated that:

        “So Anderson baked the cake, but without the requested message.”

        So Dee, aka Mike Liarson, doesn’t read her own cites.

        https://reason.com/2021/06/21/colorado-court-slaps-baker-with-fine-for-refusing-to-make-gender-transition-cake/#comment-8959433

        1. I know Dee has muted me”

          How’d you get her to do that?

          She keeps humping my leg like a retarded Chihuahua.

          1. A solid year of destroying their idiotic sophistry.

            I’m on most of the leftists mute list. I still break their arguments down though.

            1. It’s really been self-defeating for them because they don’t get to see their arguments destroyed, and can’t formulate counter-arguments.

          2. Consistently remind everyone that she’s a squawking bird named Dee.

      3. Rewrite 230 and revoke their ability to censor user content while maintaining a liability shield vis-a-vis user content.

        1. They’ve been given this answer. The feigned curiosity is insincere trolling.

        2. Ken, is this your proposed solution?

          1. Why is incumbent on Ken to provide a solution to a problem he sees? Identifying a problem and solving a problem aren’t the same thing. What’s your fucking solution?

            1. The same reason you can’t repeal aca without implementing a new plan with the exact same parameters. Dishonest argumentation.

              Of course white Mike missed the hour long round table discussing solutions posted above.

            2. “What’s your fucking solution?”

              If White Mike had one he wouldn’t be playing the “implying” game.

          2. Most of our problems work the,selves out of we dispose of the democrats.

  23. Is Microsoft ‘Out To Get Conservatives’?

    Facebook, Twitter, Google, Microsoft, Apple, media (including Reason), public schools, IRS….

    LITERALLY EVERYONE IS OUT TO GET CONSERVATIVES!

    1. REALITY AND THE VERY UNIVERSE ITSELF IS OUT TO GET CONSERVATIVES!

      (When, oh WHEN, will the Universe finally buckle up, knuckle under, and LISTEN UP to, and OBEY, and conform to, The Will of Conservatives!?! Only THEN will we finally have The Triumph of the Will!)

    2. Not a conservative, but it’s pretty easy to see the one sided behavior of all of the examples you gave.

      1. Question One: Do the Democrats control the House, the Senate, the White House, the FTC, and the Justice Department?

        Question Two: Have the Democrats threatened to break big tech companies up over toleration of conservative speech (AKA “misinformation”) in a report authored by Lina Khan?

        Question Three: Did big tech companies suppress the speech of conservatives in regards to the origin of covid-19 and Hunter Biden’s emails as “misinformation”?

        Question Four: Was Lina Khan nominated by Biden to be the commissioner of the FTC and confirmed by the Democrats in the Senate?

        Question Five: Are the FTC and the Justice Department bringing antitrust cases against Facebook and Google and threatening to break them up?

        Question Six: Are there Democrat bills pending in Congress to break up big tech companies and limit their ability to make future acquisitions?

        The answer to questions one through through is “yes”.

        And anyone who thinks this has nothing to do with big tech companies suppressing conservative speech on their platforms is either ignorant of the facts, hopelessly stupid, or willfully blind.

        1. Question Seven: What is your proposed solution?

          1. He’s already explained the solution to you repeatedly, along with other posters on this site. They’re tired of answering you you disingenuous shit.

          2. What’s your solution? You don’t have one, and you don’t care whether Ken has one either. Stop posting this question like it’s some kind of gotcha.

            1. Part of the answer is divided government by the way.

              You can’t have one part in charge of the House, the Senate, the White House, the FTC, and the Justice Department’s antitrust unit–and cases pending against the social media companies to break them up over tolerating “misinformation” without there being problems.

              Any solution that doesn’t do something about the Democratic party and the United States government being one in the same thing is an incomplete solution. One party governments all have certain features, with the party and the government being the same thing, and they’re common to everywhere from New York and Minneapolis to Moscow and Beijing.

              It really shouldn’t be surprising to any libertarian to see conservative speech treated like shit when the progressives no longer need to share any more power than they want to share. When these companies are at one party’s mercy, they’ll do what that party wants.

              1. The most significant event on January 6 wasn’t the Capitol riot.

                The most significant even on January 6 was the announcement, early that morning, that both of the Republicans in Georgia had lost. It was the announcement that the Democrats and the U.S. government were one in the same.

                And at that point, we didn’t know Manchin and company might stand in the way of packing the Court, etc.

        2. As I recall, Ken is pretty much in support of “Section 230”, so this isn’t directed at him.

          However…

          Question 7: Why are there VAST numbers of conservatives salivating at the prospect of replacing, with some unspecified idealistic “better replacement”, Section 230, while being totally ignorant of the near-miraculous nature of Section 230, which, for once, simply and elegantly LIMITS the powers of Government Almighty?

          Question 8: WHY do SOOOO many conservatives think that they can pussy-grab the liberals with a “better” version of Section 230, fantasizing that things will go THEIR way when doing so, thinking that liberals could NEVER pussy-grab them right back, as 230 bites the dust? Did they NOT NOTICE that they are largely out of power right now?

          Question 9: Are conservatives ready, when Section 230 dies, for the Ministry of Protecting Your Baby Feelings on Social media?

          1. “Question 7: Why are there VAST numbers of conservatives salivating at the prospect of replacing, with some unspecified idealistic “better replacement”, Section 230”

            They’re lashing out at the Big Tech companies who are treating them like shit at the behest of the Democratic party. It’s a white riot. No justice. No peace.

            1. I believe that you’re correct! This kind of unthinking emotional thirst for revenge, however, is near-guaranteed to backfire! Especially if Government Almighty is going to be our Savior! Time and time again, in place after place, the abused, down-trodden poor have lusted after revenge on the rich… And elected Socialist and Communist governments to “set it right”! It doesn’t work! Meet the new boss, worse than the old boss!

              1. So, when can we expect your support to materialize for doing something about the Democratic party using the coercive power of government to intimate social media companies into censoring speech and treating conservatives like shit?

                1. “Doing something” is using your vote and your voice! Both of which I support fully! What I do NOT support is resorting to blatant lies and trying to tear down democracy!

                  See here for FACTS (not much of an editorial, despite the title… Mostly FACTS) about how the GOP has become a danger to democracy itself!

                  https://www.salon.com/2021/04/11/trumps-big-lie-and-hitlers-is-this-how-americas-slide-into-totalitarianism-begins/
                  Trump’s Big Lie and Hitler’s: Is this how America’s slide into totalitarianism begins?

                  1. If there’s one news source I trust for being completely objective, it’s Salon.com.

                    /sarc

          2. Real answers–

            Question 7: Why are there VAST numbers of conservatives salivating at the prospect of replacing, with some unspecified idealistic “better replacement”, Section 230, while being totally ignorant of the near-miraculous nature of Section 230, which, for once, simply and elegantly LIMITS the powers of Government Almighty?

            The ‘better replacement’ isn’t a replacement. It is a simple clarification that a site is a platform OR a publisher and if one acts as one, while claiming the privileges of the other, there will be ramifications.

            Question 8: WHY do SOOOO many conservatives think that they can pussy-grab the liberals with a “better” version of Section 230, fantasizing that things will go THEIR way when doing so, thinking that liberals could NEVER pussy-grab them right back, as 230 bites the dust? Did they NOT NOTICE that they are largely out of power right now?

            The WAY things go is irrelevant. That they go the same WAY for everyone is. They are willing to accept that they be subject to the same rules as their ideological opponents.

            Question 9: Are conservatives ready, when Section 230 dies, for the Ministry of Protecting Your Baby Feelings on Social media?

            Please clarify.

            1. In the real world, one side does NOT get THEIR way, exclusively and purely, for all of time. If you kill Section 230 (and GROW Government Almighty in so doing, because Section 230 is the best that we can get, in terms of keeping Government Almighty SMALL), then prepare for liberals to get a HUGE slice of the pie!

              I have heard often (and agree with) the following: Do NOT give ANY power to Government Almighty, that you would NOT like to see placed in the hands of your worst political “enemies”! Because sooner or later, they WILL get that power!

              The above is true in a democracy, AND in a dictatorship! After the dictator dies (and is replaced with “whatever”), cultural traditions (authoritarian or otherwise) will continue!

              1. CAPSLOCK is CRUISE CONTROL for cool.

              2. Real answer.

                In the real world, one side does NOT get THEIR way, exclusively and purely

                Please re-read–

                Question 7: Why are there VAST numbers of conservatives salivating at the prospect of replacing, with some unspecified idealistic “better replacement”, Section 230, while being totally ignorant of the near-miraculous nature of Section 230, which, for once, simply and elegantly LIMITS the powers of Government Almighty?

                The ‘better replacement’ isn’t a replacement. It is a simple clarification that a site is a platform OR a publisher and if one acts as one, while claiming the privileges of the other, there will be ramifications.

                Question 8: WHY do SOOOO many conservatives think that they can pussy-grab the liberals with a “better” version of Section 230, fantasizing that things will go THEIR way when doing so, thinking that liberals could NEVER pussy-grab them right back, as 230 bites the dust? Did they NOT NOTICE that they are largely out of power right now?

                The WAY things go is irrelevant. That they go the same WAY for everyone is. They are willing to accept that they be subject to the same rules as their ideological opponents.

                Note, there is no demand or desire for a particular ‘way’, only that the process be clarified and applied precisely the same to all.

                This would limit the power of “government almighty” to collude with favored corporate entities–regardless of which party was in control–as the rule could no longer be applied unevenly.

                1. “It is a simple clarification that a site is a platform OR a publisher and if one acts as one, while claiming the privileges of the other, there will be ramifications.”

                  Raw naked power-grabbing! If the 51% says it is OK, it is OK! There is NO law of physics, chemistry, or any other such thing, saying this! Only the naked power-greed of the dictatorial majority! There is NO difference, in principle, between the above, and the below!

                  If you want to love animals, pamper your pets. If you love to eat meat, eat meat. Pick one, ONLY one!

                  You either love animals, or you eat meat… You can NOT do both! All pet owners who eat meat? Their pets will be slaughtered and their pet-meat distributed to the poor! Because I and 51% of the voters said so! And because we are power pigs, and LOOOOOVE to punish people!

        3. Question Seven: Are conservatives still able to find the information and stories that they seek?

          The answer is “yes.”

          So you’re not being totally suppressed. You’ve still got FOX, talk radio, and more fringe websites than you can shake a stick at.

          1. “So you’re not being totally suppressed.”

            Fuck off, lefty shit.

            1. Sevo, watch out! They are ON to ya!

              https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/and-running/202106/the-personality-disorder-you-dont-hear-about

              The Personality Disorder You Don’t Hear About
              The sadistic personality may be mistaken for antisocial personality disorder.

              1. spaz flag

          2. Those don’t count, because.

            1. Prisoners see daylight for a few hours, they have the same benefits of non prisoners.

              You leftists keep revealing youre authoritarian rationalizations.

            2. Separate, but equal, huh Mikey?

          3. Real answers–

            Question Seven: Are conservatives still able to find the information and stories that they seek?

            The answer is “yes.”

            The answer, actually, is ‘no’. here are various sites, fora, and creators that are being denied access. If the ‘information’ one seeks is to hear their opinions, use their services or enjoy their content and they are being denied access then the answer is ‘no’ .

            So you’re not being totally suppressed. You’ve still got FOX, talk radio, and more fringe websites than you can shake a stick at.

            No one is complaining about the right being “totally suppressed” They are complaining about serial and selective suppression. Is a site popular? Is a site saying things that actually hurt leftist goals? Deny service. Silence. Suppress.

            If a person wishes to watch Star Trek and it has been removed, it is no comfort to them to let them know that there are other shows on that deal with space. They might have similar themes, but they are not the thing desired. This is especially so if Star Trek has been removed because someone has decided that it says something that another space themed show doesn’t like.

            1. The answer, actually, is ‘no’. here are various sites, fora, and creators that are being denied access.

              Denied access to what? The Internet? Is Time Warner refusing access to these things you mention?

              1. Yes. See parlor. It was denied access for weeks. Months for phone platforms. Try thinking before responding.

              2. A thousand times yes, you stupid fuck! Have you been living under a rock?

      2. As a Mormon you’re a big govt social conservative nazi like 99% of Mormons.

        1. asshole flag

    3. I’m not sure why people feel they need to discuss politics on LinkedIn, an employment site; on Twitter, a completely frivolous site where people post 280-character messages; on Facebook, a site where people post pictures of their cats and grandchildren and dinners.

      1. I’m quite certain all of that is none of your business.

      2. Remove Sec 230 protections for anyone who takes a heavy censorious hand. Treat them like CNN or the NYT, who can be sued by the Nick Sandmans and James Okeefes of the world

        1. That’s already a part of Section 230. The issue is when the tech companies’ behavior crosses the line into “editorial control.” It seems clear to me that this line has already been crossed.

          1. If I understand 230 correctly, they’re technically allowed to moderate content, but they’re supposed to do it in good faith. Most of the silencing being in favor of one group of people (progressives) flies in the face of that.

            1. But their argument is silencing virologists, newspapers and conservatives who disagree with a Democratic party narrative IS good faith.

      3. I’m not sure why anyone uses any of those platforms at all. I don’t.

        1. That’s not really anything to be proud about. The technology, when not abused, is sound.

      4. “I’m not sure why people feel they need to discuss politics on LinkedIn, an employment site;”

        Because having the “correct” (aka ‘not right’) politics is a prerequisite for a decent job offer?

        1. It isn’t about people talking about politics.

          The WSJ article I linked below mentions a researcher who referenced a paper he’d written on the Tiananmen Square Massacre.

          Apparently, you’re not allowed to reference the Tiananmen Square Massacre in your resume.

          1. If a potential employer will reject you for that, then they’re probably not someone you want to work for anyway.

            1. I think Ken is saying LinkedIn flagged the guy’s resume, not an employer.

            2. This story explains what happened:

              https://www.tampafp.com/linkedin-blocks-profile-that-mentions-tiananmen-square-massacre/

              LinkedIn blocked the guys profile for viewing in China because China has a law censoring mention of Tiananmen Square Massacre.

              1. Ahhh. That makes sense. So what is Ken bitching about exactly?

            3. “If a potential employer will reject you for that, then they’re probably not someone you want to work for anyway.”

              Microsoft is essentially deplatforming people at the behest of the Chinese government, and you don’t see the problem with that?

              That isn’t an example of Microsoft exercising its property rights.
              That’s an example of the Chinese government forcing Microsoft to censor speech.

              You’ve completely lost your mind.

              1. He is fine with fascism. As long as government power is hidden behind corporations he loves it.

                1. They’ve dug their heels in on this they can’t back down. Sarc literally just asked what Ken’s problem with Microsoft censoring speech because the Chicoms told them to is.

  24. Is Microsoft ‘Out To Get Conservatives’? And Is That Jim Jordan’s Business?

    Subhead: The Microsoft check cleared the bank.

  25. I hope that I’m not the only one picky enough to note that you dropped the “t” in “cachet”.

  26. when reason koch liberaltarians embrace trillion dollar multi national companies run by amoral billionaires you’re essentially embracing the security state which is totalitarian. Therefore you’re no longer free minds or free markets.

  27. All you apologists for government driven censorship in the name of Microsoft’s freedom of speech and association need to account for this: LinkedIn is blocking users who post things on LinkedIn that offend the Chinese government.

    “The academic is one of a spate of LinkedIn users whose profiles have been blocked in recent weeks. The Wall Street Journal identified at least 10 other individuals who had their profiles blocked or posts removed from the China version of LinkedIn since May, including researchers in Jerusalem and Tokyo, journalists, a U.S. congressional staffer and an editor based in Beijing who posted state media reports about elephants rampaging across China.

    A LinkedIn spokeswoman said in a statement that while the company supports freedom of expression, offering a localized version of LinkedIn in China means adherence to censorship requirements of the Chinese government on internet platforms. The company didn’t comment on whether its actions were proactive or in response to requests from Chinese authorities.

    —-Wall Street Journal, June 22, 2021

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/academics-bristle-over-linkedin-blocking-their-profiles-in-china-11624366667?

    1. Back during the Red Scare, it wasn’t necessary for the government to contact Hollywood studios directly with a list of individual writers, directors, or actors who were in any way associated with communism in the past. If you were associated with communism, they didn’t wait for the government to mention you buy name. They just got rid of you and refused to work with you ever again.

      Refusing to associate with writers, directors, and actors–because of rank intimidation by government–was, of course, not an excellent example of private studios asserting their rights to speech, their property rights, or their association rights. It was an example of government driven censorship. And I’m here to tell you that when Microsoft deplatforms people for fear of what the Chinese government will do to them if those people aren’t deplatformed, that isn’t an excellent example of Microsoft exercising their rights either. It’s just rank intimidation and government driven censorship.

      Oh, and when Microsoft censors speech and deplatforms people for fear of what the Democratic Party dominated U.S. government will do to them through antitrust if they don’t, it isn’t any different from when Microsoft censors on behalf of the Chinese Communist Party. It’s still just rank intimidation driven censorship, and those of you who are defending it in terms of libertarianism and freedom of speech should all be ashamed of yourselves.

      1. Oh, and when Microsoft censors speech and deplatforms people for fear of what the Democratic Party dominated U.S. government will do to them through antitrust if they don’t, it isn’t any different from when Microsoft censors on behalf of the Chinese Communist Party.

        I agree with this position. What I don’t get in this whole debate is why the Republicans think that another form of government threat (removing S230 protections) is the answer. If the problem is government intimidation through regulation, why not argue against regulation instead of promoting your own form of punishment/regulation?

        The Republicans have made tech companies enemy number 1 among their constituents. Do you think that’s going to help or hurt the tech companies stand up to the government when now you have no friends on either side?

        1. What I don’t get in this whole debate is why the Republicans think that another form of government threat (removing S230 protections) is the answer.

          I don’t get it either.

          I can understand it as an attempt to lash out at the Big Tech companies that are treating conservatives like shit, but that’s an explanation for their behavior rather than an argument or excuse.

          I think conservatives online will be the biggest victims of Section 230 being repealed, too.

          That being said, our fellow libertarians really shouldn’t defend censorship through government intimidation as if the restults of government intimidation were an excellent example of free speech, private property, and association rights. Maybe if we can get more libertarians to understand that deplatforming people under the threat of government isn’t pro-free speech or pro-association rights, we’ll get more Republicans to listen to libertarians about Section 230. I’m doing my part on both sides.

          1. Section 230 should replaced with something that protects true open forums (who lightly moderate for threats and profanity), and doesnt protect heavyhanded partisan censorious bootlicking propagandists. Seems simple. Laws are changed every day.

            1. “…lightly moderate…”

              Define that in “rule of law and not of men” terms? And WHY should Government Almighty, and not web site owners (AKA the free market) define that in the first place? If there is a HUGE un-met need for postable web sites with YOUR vision of “light moderation”, go fill it! Get ye RICH!!!

              1. Real answers–

                Define that in “rule of law and not of men” terms? And WHY should Government Almighty, and not web site owners (AKA the free market) define that in the first place?

                It is ‘government almighty’ that defines ‘threat’ and ‘profanity’ now, not site owners. Statements cross a government defined line from ‘insult’ into ‘actionable threat’ Websites that do the bare minimum required are considered to be ‘lightly moderating’. Reason is one such space.

                If there is a HUGE un-met need for postable web sites with YOUR vision of “light moderation”, go fill it! Get ye RICH!!!

                Gab, Parler, Locals, Minds, Bitchute, Rumble, Odysee among others are all trying. They are under near constant attack.

            2. I don’t know how you do this in any meaningful way without creating something like a government agency to oversee this, certainly government would have to enforce the law. So we’re back to square 1. Government has so much control over social media that they can cause undue influence over their decisions on what to host or not host. Your solution gives more power to government. It’s a catch 22. The amount of legal liability and challenges alone would be enough to entrench the current tech giants in a regulatory capture scheme. Is that really what you want?

              There’s a fine line between political speech and speech that private forums/owners might find disgusting. While I fully agree that we would be better off allowing all political speech in an open forum, I respect the rights of companies to moderate disgusting bigoted speech if they so choose to. Who draws that line? Seems like you’re arguing for government (Congress) to do that through a modified S230. But that means a government agent has to enforce those rules. What do you think happens when your preferred party is out of power and your enemies in the culture wars are running the show?

              While not perfect it seems to me that the best approach is to let the property owners, the social media companies, perform the role of deciding which content to host instead of government agents.

              1. It is called the court system.

                1. Hey JesseBahnFuhrer… No matter HOW many times you tell your “Big Lie”, it is NOT true! You’re part of the mob, aren’t you, gangster? For a small fee, you tell small businesses that you will “protect” them… From you and your mob! Refute the below, ye greedy authoritarian who wants to shit all over the concept of private property!

                  Look, I’ll make it pretty simple for simpletons. A prime argument of enemies of Section 230 is, since the government does such a HUGE favor for owners of web sites, by PROTECTING web site owners from being sued (in the courts of Government Almighty) as a “publisher”, then this is an unfair treatment of web site owners! Who SHOULD (lacking “unfair” section 230 provisions) be able to get SUED for the writings of OTHER PEOPLE! And punished by Government Almighty, for disobeying any and all decrees from Government Almighty’s courts, after getting sued!

                  In a nutshell: Government Almighty should be able to boss around your uses of your web site, because, after all, Government Almighty is “protecting” you… From Government Almighty!!!

                  Wow, just THINK of what we could do with this logic! Government Almighty is “protecting” you from getting sued in matters concerning who you chose to date or marry… In matters concerning what line of work you chose… What you eat and drink… What you read… What you think… Therefore, Government Almighty should be able to boss you around on ALL of these matters, and more! The only limits are the imaginations and power-lusts of politicians!

        2. No, tech companies have made themselves enemies of large segments of the American people, and they’ve done so quite proudly.

        3. “….. republicans have made tech companies enemy number 1…..”

          And dems have put tech companies on notice to toe the line, as ken points out.

          Which one bothers you more?

        4. It still is weird watching people who claim to be libertarian denigrate other libertarians for asking to remove favored protections as of they are sacrosanct.

          1. “…remove favored protections …”

            Are you EVER going to stop lying, JesseBahnFuhrer? Please explain to us how Section 230 favors one internet company over another?

            https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act.shtml

      2. I have used that real life analogy here twice already. Progressives still treat the Hollywood Blacklist as the worst thing that happened in the 20th Century, and 70 years later are still deifying commie scumballs like Dalton Trumbo.
        Not only do they insist todays Conservatives build their own movie studios to compete with the 5 oligarchs, they have to build their own theaters, and have to manufacture their own cameras, film, and editing equipment.

  28. Daily reminder.

    Dem PAC member openly celebrating the public execution of a mother and father because he thought they were white with a confed flag.

    They were hispanic, with a PR flag

    1. What? No one has heard of this. No Google search result (shocker)

      1. It was Richard Taite of the Democracy Preservation Initiative. I’m not able to post links, but I’ll see if this Twatter goes through if I play with the paste:

        emeriticus/status/1406796891803770882

        1. Taite deleted his account once he realized that he fucked up and powerleveled himself.

    2. Link to whoever is doing this celebrating?

    3. Link?

  29. None of the Tech companies, Microsoft included, are out to get or stop conservatives. You can discuss any of a number of conservative ideas and principles on these platforms. What they are limiting are the conspiracy theories that have little to do with conservatism. Most of these conspiracy theories are populist or authoritarian.

    1. GFY
      Even you know that is a lie

    2. “What they are limiting are the conspiracy theories that have little to do with conservatism. Most of these conspiracy theories are populist or authoritarian.”

      It’s almost as if you’re completely ignorant of what’s happened in recent weeks with revelations about the origin of covid-19 and revelations about Hunter Biden’s activities on behalf of his father.

      I suspect you’re aware of these things, on some level, but for some reason, the facts don’t seem to have any sway with you. There are words I can think of for people who’s opinions remain invulnerable to facts and reason, but none of them seem very flattering.

      1. Lol. No one cares about hunter, and it’s not because of LinkedIn “censorship”.

        Jfc. You guys are simply out of step. No one cares about what you care about. Welcome to a free society. No one cares about your pet issue, and you can’t make them.

        Unlike trump’s children, hunter has never been given access to the inner workings of government or the benefit of chinese expedited trademarks. After the trump kids used the whole government for their purposes and suffered no consequence, how do you expect people to care about more ill gotten emails? It’s ludicrous, if you simply examine this with open eyes and very basic knowledge of humans.

        1. GFY. Polls show that wasnt true. Imagine being a propagandist for a true fascist regime

        2. No comment on suppression of lab leak theory?

        3. “Lol. No one cares about hunter”

          Yet Don Jr having a meeting in 2016 was a cause celebre for fucking years?

          BTW, any thoughts on how Biden is so thoroughly Putin’s cock holster that it almost defies logic at this point?

          1. He’ll never acknowledge that because only Trump could be Putin’s Puppet.

          2. Hey Damiksec, damiskec, and damikesc, and ALL of your other socks…
            How is your totalitarian scheme to FORCE people to buy Reason magazines coming along?

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

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

            “Now, to “protect” Reason from this meddling here, are we going to REQUIRE readers and advertisers to support Reason, to protect Reason from boycotts?”
            Yup. Basically. Sounds rough. (Quote damikesc)

            (Etc.)

            See https://reason.com/2020/06/24/the-new-censors/#comment-8316852

        4. “Lol. No one cares about hunter, and it’s not because of LinkedIn “censorship”.

          Jfc. You guys are simply out of step. No one cares about what you care about. Welcome to a free society. No one cares about your pet issue, and you can’t make them.”

          The idea that the government should intimidate big tech platforms into censoring speech and deplatforming speakers–because the speakers are talking about something you don’t particularly care about–would seem to make you look very stupid.

          The allegation isn’t just that the Democrats are using the coercive power of government to stop people from talking about Hunter Biden. The allegation is that they’re using the government to censor speech, and if free speech isn’t important to you, well it is to us and lots of other people. Fuck you.

        5. De Oppresso Liber
          June.22.2021 at 12:06 pm
          “Lol. No one cares about hunter, and it’s not because of LinkedIn “censorship”….”

          Hey, you lying pile of lefty shit! Still waiting for one cite of Ken lying, asshole!

      2. Nothing has happened with revelations about the origins of COVID-19. We still have no solid evidence one way or another about the lab leak theory.

        You yourself have said as much, reducing your oft-repeated argument down to “Dr. Fauci should be fired for funding Chinese virus research even if it didn’t cause COVID-19”.

        1. “Nothing has happened with revelations about the origins of COVID-19. We still have no solid evidence one way or another about the lab leak theory.”

          So you’ll stick to your bullshit, just like you did regarding the cop who died of a stroke?
          You could give lessons in STOOOPID!

        2. Fauci should be woodchi… I mean fired for funding gain-of-function research in corona viruses even if COVID can’t be forensically traced back to the Wuhan lab. There might not be “solid eveidence” either way, but to give a zoonotic jump and a biosecurity failure the same level of possibility is really fucking dense.

      3. What recent Hunter Biden revelations? His use of racist language? His new, suspiciously successful art career?

    3. “”What they are limiting are the conspiracy theories “”

      Like the lab leak theory of Covid that people didn’t want to acknowledge because they they it would be siding with Trump?

      1. There is nothing conservative about the lab leak theory. It seems to get attention from any number of perspectives. In January 2020 the former President repeatedly praised the Chinese and their effort to contain the virus. His perspective only changed as he sought a scapegoat.

        1. …yet social media banned anybody discussing it before and actively STILL ban doctors discussing treatments for it to this day.

          Didn’t know Zuckerburg or Dorsey were medical geniuses but their platforms certainly behave in such a manner.

          1. “yet social media banned anybody discussing it”

            *All* social media? *Any* discussion? There’s some major hand waving going on there.

            1. That’s right, if it isn’t 100% it’s not censorship.

              Do you even listen to the arguments you make?

              1. She’s just squawking.

            2. “…*All* social media? *Any* discussion? There’s some major hand waving going on there…”

              There’s some major goal-post moving going on there.

        2. “There is nothing conservative about the lab leak theory.”

          Is there anything progressive about supporting government bureaucrats, who want to make choices for the rest of us about what we’re allowed to do, what we’re required to do, etc. and want to use the coercive power of government to force us to abide by their choices?

          Because it seems to me that there was something very progressive about supporting Dr. Fauci’s credibility against the credibility of Donald Trump, and his belief that we should be free to make choices for ourselves rather than have Dr. Fauci and his bureaucratic minions make our choices for us.

          Have you not noticed that there were plenty of progressives who appear to think it’s very important to defend Dr. Fauci and the authority of government bureaucrats making choices for the rest of us for some reason?

          https://www.thoughtco.com/logical-fallacies-appeal-to-authority-250336

          Opposition to the lockdowns was very much a conservative issue, and so, yes, it seems to me that Dr. Fauci’s credibility was and is very much a conservative issue.

          1. “Donald Trump, and his belief that we should be free to make choices for ourselves”

            The Donald Trump in your universe maintained consistent positions on important political matters? The Donald Trump in the real world was all over the place, sometimes contradicting himself in the course of a single day.

        3. “January 2020”? Haha. Had a lot to go on at that time, eh mod?

          “……perspective only changed as he sought a scapegoat.”

          Wow. There’s a lab right fucking there, dude. Maybe nobody should question that as the source because it’s unfair scapegoating?

          Libs get dumber every day.

          1. The fact is that Peter Navarro was warning the former President at that time of problems in China. The fact is regardless of where the virus originated the former administration was incompetent in the handling of the pandemic. The fact is that the lab leak theory has nothing to do with conservatism.

            Conservatives are free to talk about conservative ideas and principles on most social media platforms and Jim Jordan is wrong.

            1. “…The fact is regardless of where the virus originated the former administration was incompetent in the handling of the pandemic…”

              The fact is:
              You.
              Are.
              Full.
              Of.
              Shit.

              1. ^

        4. “…In January 2020 the former President repeatedly praised the Chinese and their effort to contain the virus…”

          Besides your bullshit desire show guilt by insinuation, what does that have to do with leaky labs, asshole?

        5. Ignorance is your go to, isn’t it?

    4. you can’t possibly be this naive

    5. Yeah, “conspiracy theories” like the lab leak and efficacy of Ivermectin, both of which we have mountains of evidence for but are only allowed to be discussed when our betters say so.

    6. I think you meant to type ‘anti-authoritarian’.

  30. it has largely escaped the wrath of today’s crusaders against tech companies.

    That’s because Microsoft simply isn’t in the same business as the other “tech companies”. Linkedin is probably their only “social” media site, and that’s mostly a professional services social media site– not really meant or widely used to shit post about politics, but to make professional connections.

  31. Microsoft releasing new updates daily. If Jim Jordan’s doesn’t want microsoft to be the part of this,then it’s a right time for microsoft to take a stand of its own. I think microsoft should release new updates on Printers. It’s a best time for him to to be the first one to make a new update on printers.

  32. The move reflects how President Biden’s attitude on drug laws has shifted over his long tenure in elected office.

    And every shift is simply a political calculation, it has nothing to do with his actual thinking on any subject at all. His actual thinking has simply evolved from “we need to lock those niggers up” to “Don’t say ‘nigger’, don’t say ‘nigger’, don’t say ‘nigger’ “. Which, at some point as the dementia gets worse, you know damn well he’s going to say it. Just the same as he’s going to say something nasty about those crafty kikes, those thieving chinks and those nasty wetbacks, because Joe Biden is the most racist bastard in government since Bull Connor kicked the bucket.

    1. Yeah, it’s all shifting. I mean, look how fast Kamala Harris shifted on immigration!

  33. “it is strange that Microsoft has been so absent from today’s overreaching antitrust revival.”

    Maybe.

    https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/global-infrastructure/government/

  34. Conservatives are making a tactical mistake here by constantly harping on Social Media being “out to get conservatives”.

    While there’s a good argument for that, conservatives making this only about conservatives is myopic and will make it harder for them to make their point.

    Social Media is not out to get “conservatives”, social media is out to globally quash ANY dissent from a very narrow set of ideological goals that exist within an ongoing Narrative, set largely by a few thousand people who live and work within a few square miles in the Bay Area of California.

    Yes, that narrative is generally left-to-left wing, but they will (as has been demonstrated) go after anyone who steps outside of that official viewpoint, including people on the left. It’s just that conservatives make an easier target because they are, almost by definition, running counter to the “neo-liberal, center left” viewpoint that dominates Western institutions.

    This is the opportunity for Conservatives to show that they are in fact the ones more friendly to individual liberties – esp. free speech– and can therefore link arms with people who disagree with them on issues of detail in other areas.

    1. Social Media is not out to get “conservatives”, social media is out to globally quash ANY dissent from a very narrow set of ideological goals that exist within an ongoing Narrative, set largely by a few thousand people who live and work within a few square miles in the Bay Area of California.

      Yeah, the fact that most of these people are ideological progressives is incidental to their general authoritarian thirst. It’s not really an accident that so many people in the tech field are social maladapts and mentally ill psychotics, especially the Millennials and Gen-Zers.

      1. Everyone’s out to get you Red!

      2. Of course you don’t bbq and drink beer on the fourth like a normal person. Do you burn American flags and/or the Constitution? Or just not celebrate?

        1. asshole flags

        2. The hicklib pederast fantasizes about mutilating small children.

          1. You fantasize about getting gangbanged by people with aids by your logic then!

            I was just using your playbook. Ya know you saying I have aids all the time?

            1. Asshole flag

            2. But you do have AIDS all the time. And you want to mutilate small children.

    2. Translation: girl bulliers can dish it out, but they can’t take it. But let’s pretend this isn’t about God’s Own Prohibitionists catching it from their intended victims. (Cue up libertarian impersonator telling us to vote Republican and NOT read the platform…)

      1. Equity is a code word for revenge.

  35. LinkedIn suppressing posts? Uh… LinkedIn is first and foremost an employment networking site. It’s for job seekers and hirers. It’s social media to be sure, but it’s very specialized social media. Posts that aren’t in the broad general area of employment or business don’t belong. Especially those explicitly political posts that Facebook revels in. Next conservatives will be bitching that anti-Biden posts were taken down from a cooking forum.

    LinkedIn: Jobs and busineses that have jobs. Kickbacks to Biden’s kid are off topic. Let’s keep LinkedIn apolitical. If not LinkedIn, at least SOMETHING needs to be kept apolitical. Jeepers cripes.

    1. They “censored” a profile belonging to a “Donald J Trump.” It claimed current job as “President of the United States of America(2017-present)”
      They deleted it when he couldn’t verify he still held the job…

      1. Don’t we call all past presidents as the correct term “President” still?

        1. It would say (2017-2021) as opposed to (2017- present)

          It’s not your fault the joke went over your head. Conservatives usually don’t have a sense of humor…

          How’s Missoula?

          1. Asshole flag X 2

  36. Once we understand that “conservative” is code for book-burning Comstockists the claim does hold water. Fanatical bigots who demand the initiation of force and are surprised when women voters retaliate them out on their asses correctly infer that the people they sought to coerce are out to get them back. Anyone, Microsoft, women voters, physicians, The Beatles, immigrants, hippies–thrill to the sound of mystical bigots whining when they are the ones taking rather than dishing it out. Coercion begets retaliation; it’s like a law of Newtonian mechanics.

    1. A left wing professor of evolutionary biology is a “book-burning” Comstockist?

    2. Can’t tell if serious.

      1. Gotta check the last name: H. Ferrous is on point. H. Philips is insane. H. Fahnam has a freehold.

        1. *Farnham

          fuvk you reason.

  37. Many small and medium-sized businesses were forced to reduce the scale of their activities, or even close down altogether. However, as you know, brilliant ideas are born in a crisis. If you are lucky enough to develop a unique startup, you can try your luck and get financial assistance https://mediaonemarketing.com.sg/grants-loans-available-smes-singapore/ from the state to start your own business.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.