Government Keeps Meddling With Private Company Decisions
In the Twitter Files, every conversation with a government official contains the same warning: You can do it happily, or we’ll make you.
When I lollygagged or dragged my feet as a small child, my mom used to say, "You have two choices: You can do it happily, or I can make you." Even as a preschooler, I understood that wasn't a choice at all, only a warning about how unpleasant things could get for me if I failed to comply.
Employees at Twitter—and Facebook—chose to censor, suppress, and undermine dissenting viewpoints happily. But they were always facing a false choice. The public has now had the chance to peek at thousands of communications between government officials of various stripes and employees of Twitter (the so-called Twitter Files), released by Elon Musk after his acquisition of the social media company. The messages reveal the ways the lines between public and private were consciously eroded during the COVID-19 era in an attempt to eradicate "misinformation," much of which turned out to be true and all of which was First Amendment–protected speech.
The danger of this state of affairs is that eventually even friends of free association and free speech begin to wonder if the label "private company" still applies to Facebook or Twitter when the tendrils of the federal bureaucracy are so intimately entangled in the firm's inner workings. But this temptation should be resisted. Government encroachment into what should be purely private corporate decision making doesn't void the rights of private entities, no matter how infuriating the outcome.
What's more, this line of argument creates dangerous incentives. In a scenario where private companies lose protections for their own speech and for the speech of their customers to government censors precisely because the feds are meddling in their affairs, that gives every reason for the feds to meddle more and for the companies to throw up their hands. This backdoor nationalization quickly brings about the unsavory state of affairs already found in so many authoritarian countries, where citizens understand that their private activities are fully exposed to the eyes of state actors and subject to their control, and simply behave accordingly—watching what they say and to whom they say it.
This also creates a self-perpetuating cycle, in which the only folks willing to work at social media companies in soft-censor roles will be people already aligned with the powers that be—or flexible enough not to mind bending over backward.
Still, neither the employees nor the companies themselves are the villains in this story. It would be an extraordinary act of bravery, and perhaps foolishness, to defy repeated requests from the state with the implicit threat those requests carry. The villains are the state actors, who—knowing full well the limits on their power—sought workarounds that violated the spirit of the law, and perhaps its letter.
The phenomenon is bipartisan. Once one side debuts a new technique for exerting control, the other side can't help but avail itself when the opportunity arises. So former President Donald Trump's chief technology officer queried Twitter about suppressing "misinformation" about "runs on grocery stores"—during a period when there were runs on grocery stores. And President Joe Biden's FBI flagged accounts making jokes about the election, resulting in bans for "misinformation."
In our cover story, Reason reveals what you might call the Facebook Files: secret internal communications containing proof of what you'd be a fool not to suspect—that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other government bureaucrats flagged, alerted, and tattled on huge numbers of posts to Facebook as well. Here, as in the Twitter Files, there are no outright threats, but the undercurrent runs through even the most pleasant and collegial exchanges. Every conversation with a government official contains that same warning: You can do it happily, or we'll make you.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Google pay 200$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12000 for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it outit.. ???? AND GOOD LUCK.:)
https://WWW.APPRICHS.com
I get paid over 190$ per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing..
HERE====)> http://WWW.NETPAYFAST.COM
Thanks, Katherine, but us commenters have been covering this for you for several years. Tell us something we don’t know, or just go back to bed.
Came here to say the exact same thing.
Theyve ignored public statements. They’ve ignored all evidence. And they defended the censorship as being isolated from a private company despite the evidence. Only when it was overwhelming evidence do they change their tune.
But even here she talks glowingly of censorship by private companies, ignoring even the contract or moral aspect against censorship. She is almost upset government is involved so she can’t defend the censorship as private choices.
Look, you didn’t know that Republicans trying to stop nation-scale censorship schemes was EXACTLY THE SAME as Democrats corrupting the security state to expert control over all of social media and the press before reading this masterpiece.
So lay off!
Inalienable rights mean they can’t be sold, given or taken away by anyone, private or public.
If you want to live in a society without inalienable rights, where private companies can silence, coerce or kill you they will sell those services to government and other criminals.
Smarten the fuck up.
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35,500 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,500 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link—————————————>>> http://Www.SmartJob1.Com
We ought to add a step:
1. It’s not happening
2. It’s only temporary
3. It’s only a little
4. It’s a good thing!
5. Both sides are doing it!
There ought to be an alternative set of steps:
1. Treat every conspiracy theory about your partisan enemies like it is absolutely true before there is evidence.
2. If new evidence comes to light that proves your speculation correct, say, “I told you so” a lot. Don’t acknowledge that the evidence is new.
3. Wildly speculate what your partisan enemy’s next step will be on the slippery slope to fascism. Treat your wild speculations like they have already happened.
4. When your partisan enemies do any of 1 – 3, criticize them and don’t acknowledge your side also does it.
1. Treat every example of malfeasance as a conspiracy theory, deriding the people pointing it out with evidence as kooks.
2. If new evidence comes to light, claim it’s a Russian disinformation op.
3. As more evidence comes to light, acknowledge that it happened, but it’s not as bad as they said.
4. Acknowledge it happened, admit that it was in fact as bad as they said it was, but continue to treat the people who were at step 1 as if they’re still kooks while acting like it’s you who have carefully considered the evidence and come to the proper, reasoned conclusion.
Google pays an hourly wage of $100. My most recent online earnings for a 40-hour work week were $3500. According to my younger brother’s acquaintance, he works roughly 30 hours each vad02 week and earns an average of $12,265. I’m in awe of how simple things once were.
.
.
See this article for more information————————>>>OPEN>> http://WWW.DAILYPRO7.CO
Reason in 1949:
“We denounce that Austrian painter.”
Reason in 1960:
“We denounce that Soviet petty thief.”
This is a fun game.
She continues to defend the bad actors. She tries playing the “both sides” card when the evidence is that this is almost exclusively a left-wing Democrat establishment phenomenon.
No, KMW, the employees at twitter, facebook, etc. are not blameless. They assisted in restricting 1st amendment rights and violating the principle of free speech in a partisan manner. Yoel Roth has been shown to be a particularly evil participant in this and yet his name is not mentioned.
Stop gaslighting. Try actually adhering to libertarian principles in your editorial capacity. Offer a mea culpa to your readers for coming late to the party in discussing libertarian issues. Cut out these weak ass responses that only serve to pretend to be principled while actually protecting the bad actors
The number of Twitter execs that defended Twitter from publicly outing Hamilton 68 that later rejoined democrats in power was stunning. The revolving door between democrats and high levels at a company shows the clown show and state based corporatism. The Pfizer director was even bragging about it in the PV video.
I’m actually astounded that KMW can’t even invoke the 1st amendment here. Conservatives are better at defending 1A than a supposedly radical free speech organization.
I also hate this theme of Reason writers conflating speech and censorship as equally moral and legal expressions of free speech. Tellingly, the only time they change their tune is when it negatively impacts the left
No no. Promoting anti censorship is the gop attacking free association. They are worse.
“ They assisted in restricting 1st amendment rights”
That’s 180 degrees off. You can dislike what the employees did but the First Amendment gave them the right to decide to publish or not publish whatever they want on their company’s private website.
If you want to fix this, pass a law stopping the Federal employees from meddling. That’s the root of the problem.
Nobody has a First Amendment right to force Facebook or Twitter or Reason.com to publish their words.
So you claim Facebook and Twitter are publishers? That’s a huge revelation! It opens them to all manners of liability.
Every time he gets caught like this; he won’t respond. He’ll simply ghost you.
Gosh, you were wrong.
One way to catch liars is to befuddle them with predictions that the liars are too dumb to realize are just bait to do the opposite.
I am making $92 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning $16,000 a month by working on a laptop, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply. Everybody must try this job now by just using this website. http://Www.workstar24.com
You can call them publishers if you like. It’s a fair English noun to describe what they are.
If you want to get more precise, they are multinational, multilingual, advertiser-supported social media sites: they aren’t quite publishers, they aren’t quite platforms; they are a new kind of animal under the sun.
Has no bearing on the tired old debate about Section 230.
Mike, thanks for being one of the few voices for sanity in this wilderness of pains-in-the-brains!
As you said, “If you want to fix this, pass a law stopping the Federal employees from meddling. That’s the root of the problem.”
A VERY simple version of that would be to outlaw tax money spent as “carrots” to “persuade” media to do or not do certain things! FBI spent millions rewarding Twitter, say some, others say not true… I wasn’t there to see it or not see it… If it IS true, or NOT true, it should be outlawed!
https://www.techdirt.com/2022/12/20/no-the-fbi-is-not-paying-twitter-to-censor/ says 1 source…
https://nypost.com/2022/12/19/fbi-reimbursed-twitter-for-doing-its-dirty-work-on-users/
Well SHIT! Now, WHO to believe!?!? In any case, outlaw tax money spent for this!
Google pays an hourly wage of $100. My most recent online earnings for a 40-hour work week were $3500. According to my younger brother’s acquaintance, he works roughly 30 hours each vad02 week and earns an average of $12,265. I’m in awe of how simple things once were.
.
.
See this article for more information————————>>>OPEN>> http://WWW.DAILYPRO7.COM
https://www.techdirt.com/2022/12/20/no-the-fbi-is-not-paying-twitter-to-censor/ is a good read… A law that looks like it is being abused (by the FBI in this case) is “2703(d)”…
Imported from there, below…
Looking at that, you can see that if they can get a 2703(d) order (again, signed by a judge) they can seek to obtain subscriber info, transaction records, retrieved communications, and unretrieved communications stored for more than 180 days (in the past, we’ve long complained about the whole 180 days thing, but that’s another issue).
You know what’s not on that list? “Censoring people.” It’s just not a thing. The reimbursement that is talked about in that email is about complying with these information production orders that have been reviewed and signed by a judge.
It’s got nothing at all to do with “censorship demands.” And yet Musk and friends are going hog wild pushing this utter nonsense.
Like I said, though, there are a lot of people in this country who are more interested in feeding their outrage habits than in fixing problems.
But you DO have a 1A right to not have the government request/demand/cajole/coerce your speech be censored.
I’m sure you’ll be the first to know when the editors start caring about what is said in the comments.
ENB recently confessed that they do care.
You mean that Twat where she said they that the commentariat is not representative of their readership and is thus irrelevant to, well, anything?
She wasn’t wrong.
It’s hilarious all the mock offense that ENB said that on Twitter.
She was exactly correct.
This is pathetic lol.
“You mean that Twat ”
Yes.
The most hilarious thing about that tweet is soooo many of the long time commenters were actually subscribers to the print magazine and regularly contributed to the webathon until fairly recently (within the last 6 years).
We know they don’t care what’s said in the comments. If they did, Reason would have been a national light in pushing back against COVID policies.
That’s why when I wanted to read real, hard-hitting, no-holds-barred pushback against COVID Tyranny I had to travel across the pond.
https://www.npr.org/2020/05/28/863932758/stung-by-twitter-trump-signs-executive-order-to-weaken-social-media-companies
Stung By Twitter, Trump Signs Executive Order To Weaken Social Media Companies
So your “fix” for this is to vote for Trump again? Or for Josh Hawley? https://reason.com/2019/03/01/josh-hawley-section-230-big-tech-cpac/ Sen. Josh Hawley Rails Against ‘Big Tech,’ Anti-Conservative Bias, and Section 230
https://reason.com/2019/06/25/the-moral-scolds-new-illiberal-right-internet-hawley-230/ The Moral Scolds of the New Illiberal Right Are Coming For Your Internet
From Sohrab Ahmari to Josh Hawley, what the new right really wants is to squelch free expression.
TRUST in us, just TRUST in us, they say!!!
It is funny how the arc works. For the better part of a decade it was “shadow bans don’t exist, you paranoid extremist!”
Then it was “private companies can ban whatever they want”.
Then we got to “billionaires buying the means of communication is scary and dangerous to free speech” when Musk threatened to (shudder) allow free speech on Twitter.
Finally the Twitter files drop. After a month of detailed exposition of how the command and control of the media and social media works, including efforts to influence (rig?) the presidential election… The voice of Liberty finally speaks….
Their carefully crafted analysis?
Both. Sidez!!!!
Impressive.
What an impressive refutation of “Both. Sidez”!!!!
(It would be even better if delivered verbally while pinching your nose and squealing in a high-pitched tone. Just sayin’.)
Both sides is the worst objurgation Reason can level at team open borders.
But they are not “team open borders”.
They are team “illegal immigration”, which is not the same thing at all.
It means they are also team “permanent underclass” and team “illegally working so you have no bargaining power and can be exploited” and team “sex traffickers took my passport and now I am forced to work in a massage parlor brothel”.
I really don’t know why anyone would want to be aligned with that, not when “just increase immigration quotas” is super easy, barely an inconvenience. I don’t think they even have to ask Congress.
Maybe we need a new Sex Worker Visa.
Pro abortion, undocumented trans sex worker that has a day job at a quasi licensed food truck/marijuana dispensary with an anti-Trump bumper sticker that demands equal pay for unequal work.
This is the most libertarian thing I’ve read in ten years. Bravo.
Free stamps at my house.
There was an article the other day put of Chicago where the government was literally promoting h1b workers to move to Chicago, enroll in classes subsidized for education visas, and telling employers those employees were 8% cheaper due to not paying certain employment taxes such as ACA if they hired foreign workers. Government under democrats are literally promoting cost savings from hiring workers. Not one attempt to entice citizens laid off to move there.
Odd, because I have hired H1 workers. Paying them less is actually illegal. You have to jump through crazy hoops to prove it too.
So that is a strange look, coming from government.
What we are describing is a little-known program that saves employers 8 percent of payroll if they hire aliens have who graduated recently from a U.S. college or university, or who are currently enrolled in such an institution. No such subsidy goes to citizen college grads. [Emphasis added]
…
The attorney did not spell out the universal availability of this approach, in which the alien will seek a night-time or weekend master’s degree, perhaps a second or third one. He will not need a demanding school nor worry about any ceilings or government fees and may take courses that he has already taken before at some other institution. He can then get a federally subsidized job in the Optional Practical Training program for the duration of his schooling and for three years thereafter. [Emphasis added]
https://cis.org/North/HighTech-H1B-Layoffs-Need-Not-Result-Trip-Home
I have hired a couple of workers under the practical training program and then paid a lot of money to get H1B status and then a really lot more to get a green card.
We didn’t get any subsidy at that time. I wonder when that changed.
But we did get some freaking brilliant workers. This was back when the tech boom was sucking up anyone with a pulse and finding actually talented IT workers was nearly impossible.
Paying them less is actually pretty simple. You just classify them in a job at a lower scale. Who’s to say if the Jr. DBA is doing a Sr. DBA’s work?
I find it amusing that the “anti-state” libertarians are also the biggest promoters of the “proposition nation”.
Think about that for a minute. Who’s making the “proposition”? If you reject organic nations based on blood and soil or religious affiliation, what is it that defines your nation?
The state, of course.
Easy, destroy the state and have one world government. Then the borders will be ‘whatever the light touches.” This is the end goal of Marxism.
No shit. And they even back it up with an example. How stupid is that? She should know that facts don’t change the minds of the wise commentariat.
The fact is there is only one small grocery store run example (hardly remembered) against a literal constant amount of on-going leftard censorship. That’s called cherry-picking.
Like many things, lefties have trouble with the concept of scale. It’s same reason saying “I don’t think you’re actually a woman” gets the overtop response of “YOU’RE KILLING US!”
And remember it is offensive to ask anyone in the commentariat for a cite to back up their claims.
Cite?
Read TJJ2000’s reply:
The fact is there is only one small grocery store run example (hardly remembered) against a literal constant amount of on-going leftard censorship. That’s called cherry-picking.
It’s got nothing to do with citations, it’s about the scale of censorship that’s resulted under the direction of government entities to Twitter and Facebook. Disgusting for you and sarcasmic to defend such disingenuousness.
“Disgusting for you and sarcasmic to defend such disingenuousness.”
I didn’t. When sarcasmic says something it is not me saying it. We are different people.
Cite?
I have been out of the loop for a few days…
I heard a bit of some radio show while driving the other day where they played a clip of a phone call by then Vice President Biden to some Ukrainian official about some payment scheme and abouthow this prosecutor looking into Barisma was being a pain in the ass. Imissed most of the story, but it sounded like he was pressuring the Ukrainian about some money scheme or something.
I haven’t had time to look for it. It wasn’t on the NBC news when the wife was watching. And I didn’t see anything at CNN.
Did anyone here follow this? Was this some kind of hoax?
I think they also mentioned that some reporter found an email or text message from a Barisma exec thanking Junior for introducing him to daddy. There was a lot of chaos around at the moment, so I missed a good chunk of what was said….
Anyone on this?
Ok, the internet confirms it is true.
The response teams are already in place. Google et al demoting anyone not “official source” talking about it. So the AP article comes up first
https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-media-social-media-joe-biden-russia-292da15771d83932249b32873774f8ae
Their take?
Nothing to see. The Ukrainian lawmaker who shared the tapes is actually a Russian agent, so this is all disinformation to interfere in American elections.
No, literally, that is what they say.
The AP article is primarily about how it is dangerous that the internet is not able to completely block this release.
That is where we have come… From ,”deep throat” and Woodward and Bernstein being national heroes, the the Associated Press bemoaning that the censorship regime is not airtight.
BTW, they say that the tapes confirm what we already knew, that Biden was following Obama administration policy and many other world leaders in getting rid of a corrupt prosecutor because he refused to go after corrupt politicians.
The tape does no such thing.
It confirms that the prosecutor was interfering in their plans and Biden says ‘i know this guy is a pain in the ass”, but you guys have to get moving. He iseems to be acknowledging that they are worried about the prosecutor finding out about corruption, not that he is covering for corruption.
There’s also the video where Biden brags about it: https://youtube.com/watch?v=urTk6O4c0mU
Look at the uptick in Biden’s approval percentage over the past week in RealClearPolitics’s average of approval/disapproval polls. Connected? I mean, there must be some people who think this is a good thing, i.e. hooray corruption!
that ap article reads like a propaganda piece for biden. so completely biased. are there any actual news companies capable of a simple factual news report?
You’ve been out of the loop about 2 years.
Someone just sent me this link. Not my issue. Not my media source.
But…
Looks like a clear use of federal power to squelch free speech via threats of enormous consequences, both financial and to your liberty, should you dare to engage in legal protest.
Somehow “mostly peaceful” rules that say you cannot stop people engaging in criminal acts if they are protesting do not apply here. Quite the contrary, if you are entirely peaceful and are assaulted by a counterprotester you can spend more than a decade in jail because your opinion is not approved.
I get that Reason’s editors are on the other side of this issue…. But this is bedrock libertarian dogma. We fight this stuff.
Is there any room among the massive portion of the staff dedicated to writing DeSantis hit pieces for someone to cover this beat? Weaponizing the DOJ for the suppression of purely political speech? That seems like an easy call.
It seems like we would have 10 articles about this and about the control of social media and the press for every 1 article about a potential presidential candidate for an election nearly 2 years out.
Reason completely ignored the pastor facing 11 years under FACE, yet wrote an article defending Atlanta protestors committing violence charged with terrorism. Mind boggling priorities.
Not at all. Makes sense if you see them more as a PR firm for antifa/DNC and less as journalists let alone libertarians.
If you are going to discuss a link, including the link helps.
https://redstate.com/bonchie/2023/01/31/the-doj-has-some-explaining-to-do-after-video-used-to-prosecute-pro-lifer-is-released-n696601
He is the first if a dozen the doj is targeting.
Seems relevant to a libertarian publication.
You have to go to lefties like Glenn Greenwald to get that kind of principled analysis. Seriously.
A good example is the Balsonaro situation in Brazil. He’s been a harsh critic of Balsonaro tenure and policies, but when the Brazilian Supreme court started banning anything and everything related to Bolsonaro, Greenwald became critical of that, because his principle is free speech. Meanwhile, the American press is busily trying to link Bolsonaro to DeSantis. The American Media really is a cesspool.
If the editors were to write such a piece it would most likely be a glowing endorsement of the DOJ in protecting “our Democracy” by executing unarmed icky protesters followed up by condemning efforts to thwart pedophiles from abusing children and another piece about how random criminal was wrongly detained for setting fire to an occupied home based off racial justice criteria.
PrIvAtE cOmPaNiEs!
So as long as a government agency can successfully subvert the management and staff of a private media company through ideological agreement or intimidation, then there is nothing that can be done about de facto government censorship because of the de jure fig leaf of private ownership? I am understanding that KMW’s argument correctly?
That is an extraordinary concession against freedom of speech and press, which, I think, largely guts it, except as a pretty, but toothless, theory.
Hold on. Intimidation is very different than ideological agreement.
There are going to be news sources and social media sites that refuse to publish what they perceive as right-wing misinformation. They are going to do it of their own free will without any coercion necessary. And it is their First Amendment right to do so, even if it bothers some of the commenters here.
Intimidation is a different matter. If we want to fix it we should pass a law making it illegal for Federal employees and office holders to engage in jawboning.
Im not sure everyone wants to fix it and move on. I think a lot of partisans want to be outraged more than they want good government.
Because with doing it of their own free will, there is still coordination going on. The government has no just authority to censor by proxy. Even if their private partner is willing.
That’s the core of the problem. Federal employees, contractors, and office holders may not have authority, but there are currently no laws that make jawboning illegal, and it doesn’t violate the First Amendment. In fact, there’s an argument that elected officials have First Amendment rights to say whatever they like, even making intimidating threats.
Coordination isn’t illegal, and not even necessarily wrong, especially when initiated by the private party. Example: Twitter coordinating with FEMA on disseminating disaster relief information.
So pass a law and make it clearly illegal. Warning: The legal issues are more complicated than you might think.
A law to keep taxpayer money from *bribing* big-tech to officials whims? Ya know like ending the welfare-state entirely? As well as fine-pointing the Constitutional right to regulate state-to-state trade ONLY in the written purpose to avoid state-to-state trade wars ONLY.
We have that law. “Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech or the press”. An agent of the government cannot be authorized under color of current or possible future law to intimidate a private person or entity into not speaking. They cannot do so as part of their official duties, because the Congress is prohibited from authorizing such a thing as a legal duty. “Jawboning” is a pernicious concept in regards to constitutionally protected rights. There is no formulation that makes what you are talking about right with the Constitution.
That sentence you quoted started with “Congress”. It does not clearly impose any constraint on anyone in the Executive Branch.
So in your mind the Executive can violate the Bill of Rights at their leisure?
That is exactly the reality today. Can and Does violate (Drug war, BATFE) the Bill of Rights at their leisure and Cheered on by voters with 81 million tabulated votes.
Aside from the limited powers the Constitution grants the Executive directly, the Executive Branch powers are delegated to it by statute passed by Congress. Congress cannot give the Executive powers that Congress is constitutionally prevented from passing legally. The Executive is not an autocratic institution.
It is in the Nazi-Empire 🙂
It’s like all the other problems the left has created and blames on anyone else in sight (i.e. Projects constantly).
The problem is that the Federal employees and elected officials are people, and therefore have free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.
Besides Mickey’s perfect explanation – i.e. The Executive’s only job is to Execute Laws passed by Congress.
It was 11-Congressmen who signed the request to have Trump banished from mainstream media and there are many other signed requests out there by Democratic Congressmen.
“So pass a law and make it clearly illegal. Warning: The legal issues are more complicated than you might think.”
Wise words from Mr. Mike! WHO shall be prohibited from making suggestions, about what? Precisely, legally, in both cases? Taking just the WHO… Government employees? Contractors? Their wives, husbands, children, nephews, cats, dogs? If I am the POTUS, or a Senator, and I want to get a “suggestion” put in to you (Twitter-Twatter or FacePooo or etc.), you can BET that I WILL find a way to get that “suggestion” over to you, and make it somehow clear WHO it came from (but NOT in a legally provable fashion).
Then if we are going to outlaw such communications, how will we ENFORCE such laws? More spy cameras and ever more-more-MORE mandatory collection and reporting of ALL of our communications? … Pretty SUCKY idea when we think of HOW are we gonna actually make this WORK!!
I agree with this comment.
There’s really only ONE problem covering ALL of these issues.
Politicians, Officials and Voters (if its even authentic) who find the US Constitution (The people LAW and only thing that ensures Individual Liberty and Justice for all) to be an utter JOKE even after swearing an oath to it.
The building of a National Sozialist(Nazi) society is EXACTLY what empowered this proxy censorship. US Congress was never granted ANY authority to be regulating markets the way they do, or to be throwing stimulus *bribe* money around. That is where there POWER has developed from….. A Nazi-Empire that shouldn’t be here (A treasonous ‘other/foreign’ form of government).
But since there must be too many Nazi-Fans in this nation; I guess the best to hope for is prosecuting a few Nazi-Officials blatantly breaking the Supreme Law of the USA.
Early morning link….
Prices too high? We are from the government and we are here to help!
https://twitter.com/BushelsPerAcre/status/1620857144777269249
Bonus morning link
Former Trump white house Coronavirus Response director writes a book bragging about how she lied to the president and others in order to manipulate them into doing what she wanted.
https://michaelpsenger.substack.com/p/deborah-birxs-silent-invasion-a-guide
There is no deep state. – Mike.
He could be right. The subversive entrenched establishment does not seem so deep these days.
And no remorse for how ineffective and scientifically illiterate where her edicts?
KMW, fed agencies or members of the administration didn’t pressure social media to engage in viewpoint discrimination, shadowbanning, and the other shitty censorious behavior that went on. That was the intolerant left-leaning employees deliberately violating ToS.
So?
Alright, we Americans live in a progressive tyranny. It’s called socialistic Fascism.
It began with economic tyranny accelerated by the mislabelled Patriot Act, a tyranny which few Americans noticed. Now, it’s political and sociological. You and other Americans are noticing. So, what are you going to do about it? Rebellion?
“I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.” -Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)
Be such a rebellion successful, then? A return to the same broken system that has herded us to the bank of the political River Styx and now is herding us across its black waters to a netherworld, from the bourne of which few nations return.
There is a better way a scientific way. Follow it? Be past prologue, never! Better to be enslaved and ignorant than to be free and knowledgeable. It’s the new American way.
https://www.nationonfire.com/sciencepolitics/ .
Look at the stupid people at Reason changing their minds when they see new information. They’re supposed to make up their minds and then close them like a steel trap, impervious to facts, like the wise commentariat.
Oh, and the Reason writers aren’t passionate enough! They need to issue more condemnations and exhibit more outrage.
Timing is everything. These stupid journalists wait until they have facts before expressing condemnation and outrage. They’re supposed to express all of these things based upon the ramblings of conspiracy theorists. Every now and then conspiracy theorists are proven right. Logically that means they are always right. Right?
All you two do is strawman when confronted with arguments you can’t actually refute.
Bullshit. This information has been out there for years, they didn’t just see it. What has changed is not that they “saw new information”, what has changed is that this is becoming less and less deniable, so they concede a little, while still twisting it to their propaganda purposes.
Right. All those internal communications have been available for years. Whatever you say, lady.
Jen Psaki admitted it nearly two years ago on live tv…
Government Keeps Meddling
With Private Company DecisionsFTFY. It’s what governments do: they meddle. With everyone, all the time. Often for no reason other than “because FYTW.”
“Private company can do what they want…” I call BS.
What’s your alternative?
Marxism! THAT is what the power pigs want! No matter HOW much history shows that Marxism and other power-piggery does NOT work!
Complying with the law like everyone else. Being an private agent of the government is not that.
They try to say this was both sides, and I’m sure both made requests. Yet perhaps the bigger issue is that one sides requests were granted far more often than the other.
Bigger issue, as in you dislike that it is that way but you acknowledge the private companies’ First Amendment rights, or bigger issue, as in the companies need to be forced to carry all speech.
Phone companies are required to carry all speech. It’s called “common carrier”, and it’s what Facebook, Twitter, and others should be considered.
Troll-Logic is RIGHT… MORE ‘government’ will fix bad government??
Hey look a fire; someone throw some gasoline on it! /s
When you find evidence of the internet-connectivity infrastructure curbing speech come back otherwise your BS ‘solution’ is to just GROW the National Sozialist(Nazi)-Empire.
33
Pretty sure you missed the point there; it’s not “more government’, it’s “less”. The government simply declares “common carrier” status and gets out of the picture entirely.
Gonna guess here that you don’t have a clue as to an alternative which does require ‘less government’.
If so, let’s see it.
“The government simply declares “common carrier” status and gets out of the picture entirely.”
Yeah; Guess I missed the idea that “common carriers” were exempt from all government legislation. Funny how I inferred that to mean an excuse for more government regulation. Still not sure I buy that one.
“Phone companies are required to carry all speech. It’s called “common carrier”, and it’s what Facebook, Twitter, and others should be considered.”
Idiotic in SOOO many ways!!! Child-porn posts MUST be left up? Solicitations for murder for hire must be left up?
And LOOK, doofus, Ma Bell carrying my PRIVATE conversation with Aunt Mildred can NEVER cause Ma Bell to be suspected of blessing my racist shit that I say to Ma Bell!!! Ma Bell will NEVER lose (advertising or other) revenue over what I say to Aunt Mildred!!! These things are NOT true of publically viewed posts!!! And that is a HUGE difference! Just HOW stupid and evil ARE you anyway, liar?
Duh. Why even have a government if it can’t meddle? And why even have a progressive government if it can’t control us in order to impose a “better” society?
Progressive = Aggressive Gov-Guns poking at its citizens.
Remember that day the USA LIMITED those Gov-Guns to defensive purposes only.
“it would be an extraordinary act of bravery, and perhaps foolishness, to defy repeated requests from the state”
no it would not. it would simply require a corporation that disagrees with the censorship and has some balls just a bit bigger than a mouse. it does not take bravery to defy the gov when that gov works for us. all it takes is a simple response: NO.
You’re completely naive. If they don’t comply, they find themselves at the business end of IRS and anti-trust investigations; their executives will be tied up in knots; and regulations targeting the company will be passed.
And our government threatens businesses like that because they “work for us”: more than half of Americans want an authoritarian, socialist government, on the mistaken belief that it will be good for them.
so it’s ok to just roll over at take it? that’s you’re answer? you sound like someone with no balls. if someone broke into your house what is your response? just let them take the tv and rape the wife? wouldn’t want to fight back. as i said the only acceptable response to the censorship requests is NO or F-NO.
if someone broke into your house what is your response? just let them take the tv and rape the wife?
What do you do when the cops bust into your house? Sure you can fight back. If you want to die.
as i said the only acceptable response to the censorship requests is NO or F-NO.
“Those are some nice government contracts. Would be a shame if anything happened to them. Have our IRS agents met with your accounting staff yet? We also have some friendly FBI agents who would like to have a chat about that thing you did ten years ago. You know what it is.”
you probably wore the face diaper because the gov told you to. probably took the covid injection because the gov told you to. what a pussy. no you don’t just roll over because the gov commands. you fight. and if you lose some business so be it. have some integrity.
Sure. You probably think you’re tough because you got kicked out of public spaces for coughing in peoples’ faces, and you refused to get vaccinated because it’s a global conspiracy to microchip everyone. Then you get really tough by talking shit online. Sure buddy. Whatever you say.
enjoy your “vaccine” induced heart disease.
Yes, as a shareholder, I expect and demand that companies I am a shareholder in give in to government threats and censorship requests. It isn’t the job of companies to take political stances.
If someone breaks into my house, yes, I let them take my TV and I run like hell.
Saying ‘No’ to $3.5M *bribe* money?
It would not be an extraordinary act of bravery, if we lived under a free society. It only becomes extraordinary bravery if the government is authoritarian and tyrannical. KMW may be right, but it is not a thing we should accept or want to accept.
“it would be an extraordinary act of bravery, and perhaps foolishness, to defy repeated requests from the state”
President Trump was removed for his extraordinary act of bravery. Even an Elected President could not stand up to the Power of a Bureaucratic State aided by a Complicit Press and its mal-educated citizens.
Better late to the table than never?
Reason is doing this just for show. They’ll continue to support Section 230 and continue to support big tech.
Government encroachment into what should be purely private corporate decision making doesn’t void the rights of private entities, no matter how infuriating the outcome.
I’m not commenting on the article itself. Haven’t read it. But this sentence certainly gets at a real problem.
The 1A does enumerate the rights we as individuals and citizens have. Those cannot be infringed by government. But the rights themselves also cannot be eliminated – period.
The rights are absolutely NOT a property right. Property can be eliminated/destroyed by its owner (abusus). But your right to speech itself cannot be destroyed by someone else’s property. Those rights can not be eliminated/destroyed by either government action or government inaction. The origin of those rights is beyond that. Pure natural rights stuff. But of course there is no natural right re anything corporate.
Some of those rights effectively require implementation via property in corporate form — speech via media and ‘platforms’; press via media and the editing decisions of ‘social’ media; religion via church. Essentially a spin on McCulloch v Maryland where individuals have the implied power to make those rights effective.
Where the 1A IMO does directly prohibit the government from interfering re the content decisions of both the individuals who have those rights and those corporate property entities that individuals have chosen to implement them.
But it almost requires that government not allow a monopoly of property to effectively eliminate those rights for individuals. If those rights require property to effectively implement those rights, then property cannot eliminate those rights of others either. The 1A is not the same thing for corporations/property as it is for individuals.
The 1A is a restriction of government action. Congress shall make no law…
The subject of the law is irrelevant.
It is a restriction – for a reason. To preserve a clearly stated set of rights. Rights that are implied to be and written as if they are natural and relevant and way above and beyond any infringement by someone else.
You are saying that the rights don’t really matter – as long as it’s not government that eliminates them
When Gov—> GUNS are pointed at UN-Armed entities even to “ensure” a supposed Individual Right then 99% of the time that enforced ‘right’ ends up being an *entitlement* curbing someone else’s Liberty/Right.
The Constitution was very wise to note that effect and is why 99% of the Bill of Rights is prohibiting Gov—-> GUNS from acting in a certain way. Rights have to be ‘inherent’ as-in it doesn’t need a GUN to enforce it. Justice is served ‘defensively’ by STOPPING – Criminal Guns from infringing on ‘inherent’ rights.
And that’s some of the blame of how the USA government got to where it is today. Instead of defending ‘inherent’ rights from Criminal GUNS trying to infringe upon them; too many times they are *entitlements* using GUNS to grant *special* privilege at the cost of others because its NOT ‘inherent’.
Point & Case: The way the left pretends *entitlements* are actually Individual Rights yet their self-proclaimed rights are NOT ‘inherent’ at all but instead are *entitlements* at someone else’s cost.
“You are saying that the rights don’t really matter – as long as it’s not government that eliminates them.”
You keep proving you are yet more stupid than your last post.
Rights can only be compromised by coercion (a government), period. all else is negotiable.
Try thinking about that. In your case, for a LONG time.
Fuck off and die, chicken little.
If it ever gets to SCOTUS, it should be argued that government has found methods of using private actors to restrict speech in ways that the 1st amendment forbids Congress from doing by law. A 1st amendment work-around.
Caused by a Constitutional VIOLATION. Congress had no authority to be throwing around ‘stimulus’ or ‘bribery’ money at companies or states for that matter. It’s NOT in their enumerated powers list.
Private companies influence government, with lobbying. Private companies benefit from government. Government grows more powerful. Government employees go back and forth to leadership in private companies. Government influences private companies. Private companies become government, in one huge oligarchical morass.
All totally predictable
Reduce the powers of government, and it all deflates.
Government Keeps Meddling With Private Company Decisions… which I remember Reason supporting the “private company” argument not very long ago about Twitter, stupidly believing the government was NOT involved in the censorship.
Fools!
Home earnings allow all people to paint on-line and acquire weekly bills to financial institutions. Earn over $500 each day and get payouts each week instantly to account for financial institutions. (bwj-03) My remaining month of earnings was $30,390 and all I do is paint for as much as four hours an afternoon on my computer. Easy paintings and constant earnings are exquisite with this job.
More information→→→→→ https://WWW.DAILYPRO7.COM
The purpose of the Bill of Rights, which includes the First Amendment, is a legal “restraint” on government authority. It’s authority that no government official has ever had, but an illegal power grab.
All American officials, surrogates and contractors – swear a constitutional Oath of Office to NOT violate the U.S. Constitution [a wartime governing charter]. This is the employment contract they agreed to follow as a condition of being entrusted with governing authority.
If the U.S. Constitution is fundamentally flawed, we can use the “constitutional-amendment process” to correct it, but government officials aren’t allowed to just ignore it.
From the article:
“The phenomenon is bipartisan. Once one side debuts a new technique for exerting control, the other side can’t help but avail itself when the opportunity arises.”
This is why BOTH SIDES lust after taking down Section 230, as their FIRST step, so that they can push and shove us all around some more! And WHAT, pray tell, do utterly moronic Reason commenters say!?!? Yes, this! Take DOWN Section 230, so that we can make the liberals cry! And the liberals will NEVER think of pussy-grabbing us right back! (Only on Planet Stupid and Evil, is this considered to be plausible.)
“Actually, as a “friend of free association and free speech” I stopped wondering if the label “private company” still applies to Facebook or Twitter years ago. “
So what is the solution? To allow government regulation, but try to make if fair? Or try to do our best to make these companies private even if that means the usual left bias? Both kinda suck. The 1st because whoever is in power will abuse the legal power. The 2nd because whoever is in power will find some work around similar to what we have now.
Or maybe there’s another solution?
What an utterly deep analysis of my post… For a 2-year-old, that is!
It’s the best a spastic asshole can do.
Yeah, I agree on all points.
This magazine is to libertarian as Biden is to youthful.
“”It was obvious to anyone looking at this situation objectively “”
Objectively?
https://www.foxnews.com/media/journalists-reject-objectivity-outmoded-failed-concept-world-view-middle-aged-white-men
“””[W]hen misunderstood, journalistic ‘objectivity’ or ‘balance’ can lead to so-called ‘bothsides-ism’ – a dangerous trap when covering issues like climate change or the intensifying assault on democracy,” co-authors Leonard Downie Jr. and Andrew Heyward wrote in the report’s introduction. “”
Is it your belief companies that claim to be free speech bastions should be able to lie to their customers, have vague contractual terms not allowed in other industries, change rules om a whim even against past posts by users, and recieve legal protections not enjoyed by other industry for those allowances?
The one thing that has been called for is forcing companies to be liable to their own contracts. Be open and clear about rules and processes to users. That isn’t an onerous ask.
Lampposts and Hemp. Every govt official in those e-mails and all of their supervision chain, all the way up.
For the ‘Private’ side, Tar and Feathers.
This magazine is also the flagship libertarian publication, at least as far as the public is concerned.
Therein lies the problem with libertarianism. There’s no authority to seize the miscreants by the ear and toss them out the door. Anyone can call themselves a libertarian, and who’s to say they aren’t?
There is the joke about the libertarian convention where each of the 500 attendees were asked how many libertarians were there. They all had the same answer: one.
“The one thing that has been called for is forcing companies to be liable to their own contracts. Be open and clear about rules and processes to users. That isn’t an onerous ask.”
This is sensible. I would like to add prosecution of the government agents involved.