Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Suppressing Trump's Bigotry on Facebook Is Another Form of Bias

Censoring politicians' racist, sexist, and abhorrent behavior on social media does a big favor to racist, sexist, and abhorrent politicians.

Of all the grievances erupting against Facebook executives Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg, perhaps the most telling is the complaint that, back in 2015, they failed to suppress presidential candidate Donald Trump's call for "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States."

This kvetch was expressed in a recent front-page The New York Times investigation, which griped, "Trump's call to arms—widely condemned by Democrats and some prominent Republicans—was shared more than 15,000 times on Facebook, an illustration of the site's power to spread racist sentiment."

The complaint demonstrates the ever-expanding definition of the word "racist." Muslims, after all, can be of any race. Anti-Muslim bigotry is wrong, and racism is wrong, but even if the two biases have much in common, that doesn't mean they are the same thing. The Soviet Communists pioneered the use of the racism slur to tar political enemies, championing the 1975 United Nations General Assembly resolution declaring "Zionism is a form of racism." The Soviet Union was defeated and the resolution eventually repealed, but the tactic, alas, endures.

The complaint also signals the persistence of the belief that the way to deal with offensive or incorrect speech is to smother it rather than to rebut it. This, too, is a view more compatible with totalitarianism that with freedom. It suggests an insecurity, a lack of confidence that one's own ideas are strong enough to overcome alternative views. It leads to the establishment of central authorities with power to decide which views are acceptable for publication or broadcast, and which are not.

Relatedly, the complaint betrays a low opinion of the American electorate.

One view of the situation might be, "The American voters aren't bigots. If the voters see a politician making a racist appeal, that appeal is likely to backfire by hurting the candidate politically. Hiding the appeal just helps the racist politician by covering up his racist blunder." Call that the idealistic view.

Another view would be, "The American voters are a bunch of bigots. If the voters see a politician making a racist appeal, that appeal is likely to help the candidate politically. Hiding the appeal hurts the racist politician by restricting his ability to communicate his racist message with the vast audience of racist voters." Call that the cynical view.

Facebook and other large media organizations had an opportunity earlier this month for a re-do of this episode, or at least a chance to make a new decision about something arguably similar. This time around, they chose the suppression route. NBC, Facebook, CNN, and Fox News all in the end chose to reject a Trump campaign commercial that CNN described as "racist." The ad featured the migrant caravan moving through Mexico and also a convicted cop-killer named Luis Bracamontes who is an illegal immigrant from Mexico.

In the critiques of the caravan-cop-killer commercial, as in those of the Muslim-ban Facebook post, there's an expansive definition of racism. Hispanics, after all, can be of any race. Anti-immigrant bigotry is wrong, and racism is wrong, but that doesn't mean they are the same thing. Here, too, there's an implicit low estimation of American voters, a fear that they are so susceptible to racist appeals, so easily swayed, that they've got to be kept far away from such a commercial. And there's a quaint reliance on the idea of central authority—as if, just by preventing this ad from airing on CNN, Facebook, and Fox News, it's also going to be somehow kept off YouTube, or Twitter, or email, or newspaper front pages.

Both the Muslim ban and the caravan ad go to genuine political issues—the threats of extremist Islamist terrorism, of illegal immigration, and of violent crime. These are issues that both parties have struggled to solve completely. Declaring peremptorily that voters concerned about such issues are racist, that these issues are outside the bounds of acceptable discourse, or that emotional appeals by political candidates on these issues should be suppressed seems a recipe for a politics that is even more volatile. It's "basket of deplorables" and "bitter clingers," the domestic politics of contempt all over again.

That doesn't mean that there aren't some real racists out there, or that businesses can't choose for themselves to impose standards for acceptable advertising. But it does mean that those who have a real interest in promoting tolerance, or reciprocity, toward immigrants, whether Mexican or Muslim, might do that cause some service by examining their own biases and stereotypical assumptions about their fellow American voters.

Ira Stoll is editor of FutureOfCapitalism.com and author of JFK, Conservative.

Photo Credit: Mehdi Chebil/Polaris/Newscom

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.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    The Soviet Communists pioneered the use of the racism slur to tar political enemies...

    Huh. And what group in America primarily uses this tactic today?

  • TuIpa||

    A ha! A haaaaa!

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    Progressives and Koch / Reason libertarians. So what? What's your point?

  • SIV||

    They're communists.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Marxists gonna Marxist

  • Brandybuck||

    Growing up it was mostly the Right that was into censorship and related activities. Stop porn, stop the F word, stop disrespecting the flag, stop criticisms of mom and apple pie, stop complaining about the war, all that stuff.

    Nowadays it's the Left calling for censorship, and they're quite unapologetic about it. The front page of the New York Times, of all places, is openly calling for the direct government management of what ordinary people can post on Facebook. To prevent them from discussing what a major presidential candidate said on the campaign trail. Crazy.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Crazy like a fox!

  • ||

    NYT was always a left-wing rag made by and for left-wing shit heads. No surprise they would take that stance.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    Stop porn, stop complaining about the war

    Something socialists and theocrats can agree on.

  • DenverJ||

    Wtf is wrong with anti Islam bigotry? I'll bet you talk shit about Christians all the time. Well, everything you dislike about Christians is much worse with muslims. Fuck muslims, we don't need to import any of them.

  • John||

    Ira stoll is Jewish and would be one of the first people Muslims would murder if they ever achieved any real power in this country. I guess Ira would consider it his duty to die so that Muslims may roam free. People like him amaze me.

  • DenverJ||

    Islam is a violent totalitarian political system that claims a mandate from god himself to be violent, intolerant, homophobic, rabidly anti Jewish, and misogynistic. Large swaths of its adherents use the "religion of peace" to justify barbaric tribal customs such a female genital mutilation and pederasty.
    Also, they don't like dogs. That right there is proof that they are evil.

  • John||

    ;Yes but people like Stoll put a premium on virtue signaling over telling the truth.

  • SQRLSY One||

    +^ +1! "Anti-Muslim bigotry is wrong..."

    ...says the article. If ye are a pro-peace, pro-tolerance, pro-religious-freedom Muslim, well then OK, kudos for ye!

    If ye are an intolerant goat-fucking Muslim, as we have WAAAY too many on the planet, then PLEASE die off to leave the rest of us in peace! Will someone PLEASE calculate the ratio of Christian suicide-bombing shitheads to Islamic suicide-bombing shitheads? THEN get back to me about Islam being a "religion of peace"? What are the figures... I don't know, please educate me... Islam is a "religion of peace", but 20%, 50%, 90% of Islamic folks don't know that yet? 99%? At what point does the "true" Islam no longer matter, in view of what % of the shithead followers don't know what the "true" Islam says???

  • DenverJ||

    You forgot about the dogs.

  • Azathoth!!||

    pro-peace, pro-tolerance, pro-religious-freedom

    All of this is forbidden by Islam.

    There will be peace only when the Dar al Harb is defeated and all submit to the will of Allah.

    That IS Islam. It is not an extremist, jihadi view, it is the basic precept.

    Everyone submits. Or they die, which puts them directly into the hands of Allah.

    Christianity doesn't have this. At all. In Christianity, the world has a clock running, and when it times out you want to be on the side of Christ. Because the alternative is eternal damnation.

    And you are allowed to choose that. They don't like it. They don't want anyone in Hell who doesn't deserve to be there, but they will not make you accept Christ or die. Because it doesn't work.

    And they know this because they tried it.

  • vek||

    I forget what the number is, but it is mind boggling. Muslim's in America are something like 100,000 times more likely to commit acts of terrorism than any other group... And their overall crime stats aren't great either. Not as bad as saaay native born blacks, but not great.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    I've never understood why ANY Jew would ever vote for a progressive. It is literally votomg for someone who will help enable their destruction.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Some Jews collaborated with the Nazi party right up until the end of WWII.

    These people helped germans by being administrators in the ghettos for the Germans. They were pretty much the slaves on the plantations that kept other slaves in line. The Germans called them Judenrats.

    Some people fight socialism with every ounce of ability, some people aid and abet for survival, and some people collaborate.

    Why would black people continue to support the Democratic Party, which is the party of slavery? Some people have collaborated for so long they dont know what they would do if they left the Democratic Party.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Im the guy thee enemy wants to kill first.

    If I lived in Nazi Germany, I would stab every Nazi in the eye with a rusty spoon until they die. I know that every Nazi that I killed means one less Socialist asshole that they cannot replace. If you get the ratio up there before you die, you make an impression.

    Authoritarians dont like heroes who take out a high ratio before they die.

    In a Socialist regime, your gonna be murdered anyway, might as well take as many Socialist cocksuckers with you.

  • Mcgoo95||

    ...and armed with a rusty spoon, you would be the guy the enemy kills first. Too bad there weren't more heroes like you back in the Natzi-stompin days....

  • Azathoth!!||

    There were lots of heroes like him back in the nazi-stomping days. We won.

    But there weren't enough--because people like you still exist.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    I've never understood why ANY Jew would ever vote for a progressive.

    Same reason every progressive does: they are ignorant of the consequences, and they benefit from the power of the establishment. If you're a lawyer, a doctor, a teacher, a university professor, or you work in Hollywood, then your livelihood depends on progressive politics.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    Islamophobia is a form of racism. You should have learned that in college.

    And the US needs an open borders policy to bring in more of every type of human, but especially Muslims. Scientific research proves that diversity benefits everybody, so even non-Muslims in the US should encourage immigration from the Middle East.

  • Longtobefree||

    A phobia is an unreasonable fear.
    I submit that fearing a group that has a stated goal of killing you is not unreasonable.
    (and of course, as stated in the article, the followers of Islam can be of many races, so it cannot be racism in any sense of the word)

  • Fats of Fury||

    Nancy Pelosi will institute a diversity office for congress. She should go whole hog (PBUH) and make it a cabinet level office.
    Meanwhile Comrade Cortez is starting a campaign to rid the democrats of old white people. How do you like your molotov mojito cocktail Nancy, shaken or stirred?

  • buybuydandavis||

    Name 3 muslim majority countries you'd like to live in

  • RickU77||

    There are a bunch - Indonesia for instance would be nice. I just wouldn't want to do it with the current governments installed. They'd need a constitution that protected individual rights and freedom...

  • Azathoth!!||

    So, none then.

    Why not just say that?

    Because they'll never have this--

    They'd need a constitution that protected individual rights and freedom..

    They can't and be Islamic.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Ira thinks the muslims are not at war with Jews or Americans.

    Denial is a hell of a coping mechanism.

  • Mcgoo95||

    So is stupidity

  • Brett Bellmore||

    And, in any case, Islam is a religion, not a race, so advocating a shutdown of Muslim immigration to the US can't be "racist".

    They just use that word as a completely content free epithet. I'm not joking about this, the latest word is that urging people to drink milk is racist. Because... it's white!

  • Sometimes a Great Notion||

    was shared more than 15,000 times

    What I got from this article is Trump has poor ratings, sad.

  • JesseAz||

    15000 is a lot to you in a country of 380 million?

  • Sometimes a Great Notion||

    No

    Let me try again.

    What I got from this article is Trump has POOR ratings, SAD.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    What I got from this is that FaceBook was already censoring Trump, and the complaint is they weren't thorough enough.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Lefties cling to their propaganda that Trump is Not popular around the USA.

    Delusion is a hell of a coping mechanism.

  • Jerryskids||

    Next we'll work on getting the NYT banned, they publicize Trump's every word as well. WaPo, CNN, the DNC - they all got to go as long as they're supporting Trump by broadcasting his evil hateful ideology. Shut them all down!

  • Longtobefree||

    Yes, shut them all down to preserve free speech.

  • DenverJ||

    Destroy the village idiot to save the village idiot

  • Tony||

    Ivanka sent hundreds of government emails on a personal account.

  • Tony||

    Sorry I thought this was a big deal to you guys.

  • DenverJ||

    And that was wrong. And if she sent classified info she should be prosecuted. Just like Hillary was.

  • Tony||

    The funny thing about the tacked-on classification scandal is that it shows how scrupulous Clinton was in not exchanging classified material on her private account. Three out of 30,000, though not clearly marked, and some others retroactively classified. She wasn't prosecuted because law enforcement couldn't make a case. She did lose the presidency, though, and in hindsight (something the Trumps had full access to when Ivanka was sending her emails), probably would have done things differently.

  • Fancylad||

    "it shows how scrupulous Clinton was in not exchanging classified material on her private account"
    "three out of 30,000"

    Oh fuck! Really Tony? Really?
    Not even the New York Times or Huffpo believes that horseshit anymore.

  • Tony||

    Thank god we ended up with a president who's so careful with classified information he only shares it with foreign dictators over dinner and he doesn't even drink alcohol.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    You really would have made an excellent drone for the Fuhrer had you lived in Nazi Germany Tony. I can even see you actively sending other homos to their deaths while you fucked young teen boys in secret with your statist pals.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    Being Ernst Röhm's boy toy is what Tony dreams about.

  • Sevo||

    "Thank god we ended up with a president who's so careful with classified information he only shares it with foreign dictators over dinner and he doesn't even drink alcohol."

    As he is authorized to do, at his discretion, in the pursuit of his duties in dealing with US foreign policy.
    Unlike a SoS who is not authorized to share any of it.
    You really are a fucking ignoramus, aren't you?

  • Fancylad||

    "I would like to present you with a little gift that represents what President Obama and Vice President Biden and I have been saying and that is: 'We want to reset our relationship, and so we will do it together.' ... We worked hard to get the right Russian word. Do you think we got it?"
    t. Hilldog

    "Don't worry Dimitry, this is my last election … After my election I have more flexibility"
    t. Barry O

    "When you were asked, what's the biggest geopolitical threat facing America, you said 'Russia.' Not Al-Qaeda; you said Russia. The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back, because, the Cold War's been over for 20 years."
    t. Barry O

    "we ended up with a president who's so careful with classified information he only shares it with foreign dictators over dinner"
    t. Tony

    Yes, but now Trump's in charge, and Barry's padding his pockets on the speaker circuit, so don't worry.

  • Sevo||

    "The funny thing about the tacked-on classification scandal is that it shows how scrupulous Clinton was in not exchanging classified material on her private account."

    Is Tony this fucking stupid?
    Or is he hoping someone here will nod and say, 'yeah, I guess that means keeping classified docs on a non-secure server in the hallway is OK, along with destroying the evidence when it was subpoenaed'

  • Tony||

    Since the actual relevant subject is a current government official sending government emails on a private account, I am beyond certain that all the government-skeptical libertarians here will be all over that shit and not still bitching about a grandmother who doesn't work in government.

  • Sevo||

    Oh, goody! Tony is here to prove once again that he's a fucking ignoramus!

    Tony|11.19.18 @ 10:28PM|#
    "Since the actual relevant subject is a current government official sending government emails on a private account, I am beyond certain that all the government-skeptical libertarians here will be all over that shit and not still bitching about a grandmother who doesn't work in government."

    Amazing. Our fucking lefty ignoramus either is too stupid to understand, or stupid/'clever' enough to hope his bullshit passes muster.
    That may be a 'relevant issue' to you, but to those who have an IQ above room temperature, it is an irrelevancy.
    Want to know why? Well, for idiots such as you, knowing it will take many hours and hoping to charge you enough to bankrupt you, I have a special deal:
    $4500/hour, prepaid. Given your idiocy, the estimate is at least 50 hours. Please post your Visa or MC 16 digit number, the expiry date, the 3-digit security number on the back, and your billing address.
    I will set up a separate email account (not a server, and I'm sorry if that gives it away) and inform you of the addy so you can begin rudimentary instruction in web access.
    Thank you, sucker.

  • Tony||

    I hope that a relative of yours somehow forces you to get the help you obviously need.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|11.20.18 @ 12:05AM|#
    "I hope that a relative of yours somehow forces you to get the help you obviously need."

    LIttle late, there, scumbag.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    The funny thing about the tacked-on classification scandal is that it shows how scrupulous Clinton was in not exchanging classified material on her private account. Three out of 30,000, though not clearly marked, and some others retroactively classified. She wasn't prosecuted because law enforcement couldn't make a case.

    Literally nothing in this post is accurate.

  • Don't look at me!||

    Mirijanian stressed that no classified information was transmitted in the messages, that no emails were deleted and that the emails have since been "retained" in conformity with records laws.

    Different than a home brew server in her basement.

  • Don't look at me!||

    Oh, but the same as Colin Powell did, so totes ok.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    No. No it wasn't. That's a bullshit talking point.

  • Sevo||

    "Oh, but the same as Colin Powell did, so totes ok."

    Oh, but total bullshit so totes bullshitter.

  • Don't look at me!||

    I meant what ivanka did is the same as Powell did.

  • Sevo||

    "I meant what ivanka did is the same as Powell did."

    My apologies, kind sir.
    Dunno how long you've been here, but when that hag was handing over classified docs to any government with a 19YO hacker, we had CONSTANT reminders that Powell used his private email account for some coms, that was *exactly like* the hag setting up her hall-way server.

  • Sevo||

    BTW, check just a bit up-thread. The idiot Tony is still flogging that horseshit.

  • Don't look at me!||

    Well, it's no big deal anyway, no reasonable prosecutor would bring charges. Right?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Its been decided by Hillary actions, this is not an issue anymore.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Ivanka sent hundreds of government emails on a personal account.
    Hillary sent tens of thousands of government emails from a personal server.

    See the cat?

    See the cradle?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    was shared more than 15,000 times on Facebook, an illustration of the site's power to spread racist sentiment."

    I suspect 14,987 of those shares were journalists sharing between themselves.

  • lap83||

    Asking journalists not to spread racism is like asking teen girls not to spread gossip. It's too ingrained

  • Eddy||

    Are you saying journalists are as reliable as teen girls? I find that hard to believe.

  • Eddy||

    If these guys were acting voluntarily, rather than in response to broad hints from the government that it would be very unfortunate if their sites hosted icky people, then I'd be less concerned.

    But since the government seems to me to be playing a role in encouraging online censorship. They can't do it directly - the courts don't yet permit anything so brazen - but vague threats may suffice, especially with industry leaders who may want favors from the government at some time and don't want to burn their bridges.

  • Sevo||

    "If these guys were acting voluntarily, rather than in response to broad hints from the government that it would be very unfortunate if their sites hosted icky people, then I'd be less concerned.
    But since the government seems to me to be playing a role in encouraging online censorship. They can't do it directly - the courts don't yet permit anything so brazen - but vague threats may suffice, especially with industry leaders who may want favors from the government at some time and don't want to burn their bridges."

    Sort of like 'chilling' speech, the implied threat of government sanctions has FB et al acting as an arm of the government, enforcing limits on speech. And for good reason; all of us fear what the government can do to us, regardless of any hopes for favorable treatment.
    There isn't much doubt that this amounts to defacto government censorship, but if someone were to do a documentary on the matter, it is laughably based on "THE RUSSKIS!!!"
    The Ds are still whacking on that dead horse as if that miserable hag didn't manage to design her own failure. Pathetic.

  • coolth||

    Suppressing a lie also gives it credibility. I powerful interests want it suppressed, people reason, it must be true.

  • LiborCon||

    If only social media companies had been around in the 1930s, they would have stopped Hitler. And given him a time out for good measure.

  • Fancylad||

    "they would have stopped Hitler
    Deplatformed a Socialist, Pro-Arab, Vegetarian, Pro-Choice, Pro-gun Control, Anti-Smoking, Animal Rights Advocate who used Eukodal and cocaine? Not a chance.

    Now that old, white, drunken, imperialist, reactionary Churchill would have had a twitter shadowban, lost his Facebook page, saw his YouTube videos demonetized, and his PayPal account closed.

  • LiborCon||

    That makes no sense because Trump=Hitler.

  • vek||

    It has always cracked me up how PERFECTLY their platforms line up... And how almost all the heroes of the modern western world were completely opposed to the nonsense they espouse.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    More stuff from Trump that is not bigotry.

    There is no shortage of media propaganda though.

  • Fancylad||

    "But, you don't understand, it's bigotry if you disagree with us (and also rape)"

  • Don't look at me!||

    Is there anything's worse than bigot rape?

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Trump's Bigotry"

    The Narrative always starts with the presumption that the Right is racist, while the overt anti white hatred throughout the MSM and academia is sanctified as Justice.

  • Mr. JD||

    The Left begs the question in every political argument that it makes. Witness the name change given to Brett Kavanaugh in September: He became "Credibly Accused Brett Kavanaugh."

    Trump isn't racist, as opposing open borders is not racist. He's not sexist either.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Zionism is a form of racism."

    Ethnonationlism is only racism when Whitey does it.

  • vek||

    That may be so!

    But ethnonationalism is still the most effective, tried and true basis for a nation state in human history!

    Many ethnostates in fact survived NOT actually being nation states for centuries on end, and then picked up where they left off like nothing had happened... Because it's such a fucking good basis for national boundaries they can exist even without the legal boundaries... Yet all the official lines on map in the world can't seem to hold nation states together when they don't have that coherent ethnicity and culture down...

    No wonder the left is so opposed to the concept... As with everything else they hate, it actually works well.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    Anti-Muslim bigotry is wrong, and racism is wrong

    What does that even mean? You seem to be saying that I can't criticize Islam or African American culture no matter what.

  • Mr. JD||

    Is anti-communism wrong?

  • Mr. JD||

    It would help if the AP wasn't using misleading headlines to imply that Trump supporters are doing things that are actually being done by Trump haters. The Tree of Life shooting is the obvious recent example, but we have near-daily stuff like this.

  • Mr. JD||

  • vek||

    So one thing I always find amusing: People, leftists and purist utopian libertarians alike, can't seem reconcile the following facts:

    Something can be morally right, as in NAP compliant or whatever...

    And ALSO far and away NOT the practical best way to do something.


    Such is the case with a LOT of the modern PC nonsense being pushed. The fact is for a metric fuck ton of practical reasons, it's just not worth letting in people like Muslims. You can find contradictory stats, but by many Muslims have below average incomes in the USA... So not a plus there. Crime rates for normal crimes are worse than average. Terrorism specifically, they're astronomically more likely to commit than anybody else. And so on.

    In short, they don't really bring anything positive to the table, other than being a divisive pain in the ass. Since we let them in, we now have to listen to their whining about shit, and of course do shit WE don't want to do to placate them, that we wouldn't HAVE to do if they weren't here. You'd be able to walk onto a plane without an anal probe if we didn't let Muslims in still, how nice would that be!?

    Again, a pain in the ass, with no upside worth noting. And the "immoral" act of NOT letting them come in and make OUR lives shittier... Let's be honest, it's not really THAT immoral, or a big deal, to make somebody live in the place where they were born and belong... Is it? It's not like murdering them or something, which we do all the time anyway...

  • vek||

    So again, you can say it's immoral or whatever by the NAP, and it is... But it's not THAT big of a bad thing.

    However as I said above, purists REFUSE to accept the above. They MUST believe that it IS a huge net positive... When it's clearly not. At best Muslims are a wash as productive citizens, but they bring a lot of pain in the ass problems too, which pushes it into net negative territory.

    It's like banging a chick who is a 6, but is ALSO bat shit crazy. If she were a 10, it might be worth it... Or if she were 5 but super chill, maybe worth it. But a CRAZY 6, not worth the trouble. LOL

    Same could be said for Hispanics, and several other immigrant groups. Others, like East Asians, Indians, etc are pretty solid on all fronts, other than some bad voting habits. I would even argue that LEGAL Hispanics brought in on merit are pretty damn decent too.

    But this idea that moral ideas MUST also be practically the best is nonsense. We as a nation would be better off booting every single Muslim in the country, and never letting another set foot in here. It would be mildly immoral to do that though... But at least have the balls to admit it would be highly practical.

  • gphx||

    Ira Stoll, Mark Zuckerberg, Sheryl Sandberg - whatever would we do without these nice Amish people constantly telling us what to think?

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online