MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Libertarian and Police Accountability Pages Deleted in Facebook Purge

Hundreds of pages and accounts have been purged over accusations that they were "inauthentic." The page operators disagree.

"I contributed to Facebook's success and growth!" Jason Bassler said with some frustration this morning, a day after the social media giant unpublished the page for a media site he founded, The Free Thought Project. "I decided to create content day after day. Now they piss on us."

Facebook announced Thursday that it was deleting 559 pages and 251 accounts that it claims were breaking Facebook's rules against spam and "inauthentic" behavior. The Free Thought Project was one of the demolished pages, along with another of Bassler's efforts, Police the Police. Both pages that produced content—stories, memes, and videos—that focused on government behavior and were shared widely among fans, particularly libertarians.

Nathaniel Gleicher, Facebook's head of cybersecurity policy, and Oscar Rodriguez, a Facebook product manager, have explained the purge by writing that they don't think these sites were really trying to engage in political debate but were in fact spam factories trying to make money:

Many were using fake accounts or multiple accounts with the same names and posted massive amounts of content across a network of Groups and Pages to drive traffic to their websites. Many used the same techniques to make their content appear more popular on Facebook than it really was. Others were ad farms using Facebook to mislead people into thinking that they were forums for legitimate political debate.

Bassler says that's not what was happening. Bassler has editing privileges on a bunch of pages that were affected by the ban, and he shared a picture on Facebook on what it looked like to see all these pages depublished:

Unpublish noticeScreenshot courtesy of Jason Bassler


Bassler explains though that this was the result of networking between pages of similar interest, not a handful of people trying to artificially inflate their own popularity. He has made five pages himself, and he was assisting with these others.

"When we first started these pages in 2012, we started networking with different page owners realized we could do more to benefit each other by helping each other," he says. "What we did and what we've done for the past six years is help each other out by giving each other information."

Bassler isn't the only one confused. Over at the Washington Post, James Reader, who runs a progressive site and page called Reverb Reader, complains about Facebook "changing the rules as they went." Many of them, like Bassler, used networking to build a community to reach a larger audience—a normal sort of organizing that Facebook now deems "inauthentic."

The Free Thought Project had 3 million followers and Police the Police nearly 2 million. Some of the stories highlighted and shared on their website will be familiar to Reason readers, like the recent case of the Kansas man handcuffed on his own property by police who had confused him with a burglar. Bassler says he also got stories from people reaching out to them, upset when the general media reported only the police's side of the story. Bassler describes himself as a libertarian anarchist, but he says he's tried hard not to push an ideological agenda onto his pages, focusing instead on government accountability.

But The Free Thought Project also ran afoul of fact-checkers, particularly Snopes, which has accused them of misrepresenting stories on several occasions and which frequently describes them as a conspiracy site. The Free Thought Project provided coverage of veterans group in Arizona that claimed to have found a "bunker" being used for child trafficking. It was actually an abandoned homeless camp, and there's no evidence that there was any sort of human trafficking happening there.

After Snopes and the Associated Press reported that the claims were fake, The Free Thought Project defended itself by saying it never actually said the child trafficking claims were true in the first place. And it has struck back at Snopes for "debunking" claims from The Free Thought Project that it didn't actually make.

Bassler says he's had four stories pulled from Facebook after fact-checkers deemed them inaccurate. He has had two of those decisions reversed. He claims that Snopes has a grudge against them after The Free Thought Project delved into the site's finances. Snopes, meanwhile, has put up a page debunking claims from the Free Thought Project that Snopes is trying to "shut down conversation" about child sex trafficking.

It's all very messy, but even though Facebook is turning to Snopes to assist with fact-checking what gets shared on the platform, Facebook's latest round of page deletions makes no mention of fact-checking problems as a justification. Reason has reached out to both Facebook and Snopes to see if this fact-checking fight played any role the decision to shut down The Free Thought Project's page or any others affected by the purge. We have not yet gotten a response.

In the meantime, Bassler says he's going to "fight tooth and nail" to try to get his Facebook pages restored. The Free Thought Project has officially responded to having its Facebook page deleted here.

Photo Credit: Screenshot courtesy of Jason Bassler

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.

  • GoatOnABoat||

    Free thought is wrongthink.

  • Woody Chip Hurrrrr?||

    This is what pisses me off most abut Progressives: they insist on coercion and do not tolerate independent agency or thinking.

    All it really shows is how little faith they have in their own arguments.

    I would love to have hundreds or thousands of collectivist voluntary associations, held together by binding contract under penalty of fines or loss of jobs or property. Let them voluntarily come together and show the world how well collectivism works.

    But leave the fucking coercion out of it. Show some belief in your own propaganda.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Progtards are an existential enemy. Destroy them all.

  • LiborCon||

    We'll never achieve a Utopian society with that attitude.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Open wider, wingnuts.

  • MarkJ-||

    Shoot, FB killed the page of the fishing club (non political other than issues concerning fishing) I am a member of on account of the page creator refused to give FB a copy of his photo ID to prove that he was legit. No discussion, no appeal, deliver the ID or the account dies.

    Blame the russian spy services not progressives. Once russia screwed up a good thing FB had to go by the letter of the TOS. Please place your ire where it belongs.

  • Nardz||

    "Blame the russian spy services not progressives."

    Wow

  • Ewood||

    Talk about a conspiracy theorist... that guy is right up there with Alex Jones

  • TLBD||

    It is so hard to tell a progressive from parody.

  • TangoDelta||

    The real reason is obvious.

    have explained the purge by writing that they don't think these sites were really trying to engage in political debate but were in fact spam factories trying to make money.


    See it's clear that they just don't want the competition. It's the same reason the government doesn't like other people stealing.

  • buybuydandavis||

    RUSSIAAAAAAAAAA!

  • Stephen Lathrop||

    Right. Keep all the coercion on the pro-capitalist side. Got it.

    Woody, I recognize an anti-union argument when I see it. It's propped up by the notion that pro-capitalist coercion ought to be empowered to prevent, or at least severely restrict, liberty of contract. If that weren't true, you would still today have strong unions, based on a union shop principle. Workers would define their interests collectively and voluntarily, as you suggest, and use legal labor tactics, including strikes, to persuade employers that their best interest lay in negotiating contracts to employ only union workers. That can't happen now, because pro-capitalist coercion prevents it.

    Folks long ago decided that coercion on both sides needed to be limited, and balanced. Then right-wingers and capitalists successfully demanded an end to the coercion balance, and got it. The folks who then suffered the extra coercion suffered also the ill effects which anyone would expect. They and their descendants continue to suffer those effects today. Why people like you suppose that is somehow the natural order of things remains mysterious. Even more mysterious is why people like you continue to agitate to make the suffering worse.

  • Cy||

    You're speaking apples and oranges. Unions are perfectly compatible with capitalism.

  • Stephen Lathrop||

    Unfortunately, Cy, capitalists in all the Right to Work Law states disagree with you.

  • mpercy||

    What Right to Work states ban unions? None. They do preclude unions from forcing dues from people who do not choose to be members, and from requiring union membership from employment. If you want to join a union, you can.

    The old meme applied to the left: IDEAS SO GOOD THAT THEY HAVE TO BE MANDATORY.

  • Stephen Lathrop||

    mpercy, which party in the right to work dispute insists on mandatory (meaning government enforced) restrictions? It isn't the unions. They are asking for voluntary freedom of contract, for workers, and for employers.

    But right to work folks demand that government step in to outlaw those contracts, and enforce that ban with injunctions. So yeah, right to work states don't ban unions. They just ban union shop contracts. So if you are a worker, and are stupid enough to pay dues to a union which government prevents from helping you, go ahead, for the freedom.

    I'm just curious. Do you consider yourself a libertarian? If so, can you explain how libertarians justify freedom of contract for capital, but not for labor? I don't ask that rhetorically. I'm genuinely baffled in every attempt to figure out a principle which might justify that.

  • JesseAz||

    You're really extra dumb some days Stephen. Unions exist in right to work states. What they don't allow for is forced association for those who don't agree with union views.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    This is what pisses me off most abut Progressives: they insist on coercion and do not tolerate independent agency or thinking.

    Are you equally bothered by conservative-controlled schools, which are third- and fourth-tier, cenosrship-shackled goober factories that ban dissent, collect loyalty oaths, teach nonsense, reject academic freedom, impose old-timey conduct codes, and disdain science, or are you just another half-educated, bigoted, right-wing rube who lacks self-awareness?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Arthur L. Hicklib provides his 85 IQ copypasta again.

  • TangoDelta||

    What? Arty is coming around to the benefits of school choice! What a momentous occasion! Free beer for the kiddies!

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    THE MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION IN OUR LIFETIME IS COMING UP. Hillary's not going to lose again. Not because of the internet. Not this time.

  • Cyto||

    Lest you think he doth hyperbole too much, this is the exact phrase they used to open the American Music Awards 4 days ago.

  • A Thinking Mind||

    So the most important election of our lifetimes wasn't two years ago? Or 10 years ago?

    At some point people need to challenge the escalating rhetoric.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Go back to Russia, troll.

  • Joe Clave||

    Everyday is the worst day of my life.

  • ThomasD||

    Every day is just an average day.

    Worse than yesterday but better than tomorrow.

  • ||

    There will always be a new generation of young voters to whom it is fresh.

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    The Democratic party has moved so far to the left that she'd have to challenge Trump in the GOP Primary to get elected.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    So let me get this straight. Obama won two elections because of his mastery of the internet. However, Hillary lost in 2016 because of the internet. Damned internet.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Hillary was a shitty candidate with less tech savvy personnel. She also had John Podesta running her campaign, who was likely more focused on fucking little boy's assholes than he was getting The Hag elected.

  • Jimothy||

    If Hillary Clinton could, shed wipe away the Internet, like with a cloth.

  • Jimothy||

    She'd, damnit!

  • TangoDelta||

    I don't know, I kinda like the shed. It's a nice place to take things behind just before a shot is heard.

  • BigT||

    Hillary thought she could use the Obama playbook. But she wasn't a suave, articulate, black man with sex appeal for the youngsters. She is a shrill, pedantic, haggard scold with no charisma and no ideas. And Robbie Mook.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Obama won because he was black and not McCain.

  • Qsl||

    Aha!

    I knew eventually there would be a competitor to Facebook waiting in the wings. Ask and the market provides.

    Apparently with the same editorial control as Facebook.*

    I kid.

  • BigT||

    You are one strange dude, SQRLSY. Your website reminded me of the Unabomber manifesto .

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    You're wasting your time.

    The Congregation Of Exalted Reason knows the one true way.

  • Rock Lobster||

    At last we know the name of the church in which "the Rev." was ordained.

  • Don't look at me!||

    A glimpse into our bright future.

  • Steve Foerster||

    On the one hand, I hope the pages are restored. On the other hand, yesterday was the day I decided that I would be leaving Facebook. It will be a measured disengagement over the next few weeks rather than a rage-quit, but I'm no longer interested in creating content for a platform run by those who clearly hold values antithetical to my own.

    Relatedly, many thanks to Reason for having a Mastodon feed: https://innerwebs.social/@reason

    More info about that alternative social media network: https://joinmastodon.org

  • Vulgar Madman||

    Isn't mastadon the site for proggies who don't think twitter censors enough?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    At least it's not like Gab which is just a landing place for disaffected alt-righties who got kicked from Facesnap.

  • Vulgar Madman||

    Apparently the definition of "alt-right" has been expanded to include libertarians.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    It's expanded to include shit we don't like... like asparagus and brussels sprouts.

  • Vulgar Madman||

    Well that's just common sense.

  • MJBinAL||

    alt-right, has been expanded to mean everyone who is not a progressive.

  • JoeB||

    You're just steering folks away from Gab, occult proggy invisibilitarian! Nice try.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "I contributed to Facebook's success and growth!" Jason Bassler said

    He has a case to make here.

    If I put up a sign that offers anybody a $100 reward if you find my lost dog, then if you go out and find my dog, I don't necessarily get to dodge paying that reward by pointing to an asterisk on the sign stating in small print that I can change the terms and conditions of the agreement whenever I want.

    He invested his time, personal brand, and effort in creating content that benefited Facebook, and they well may be contractually obligated to compensate him for that. Hell, if they changed the terms of service making what he wrote in the past unacceptable retroactively, then what Facebook did to him might even be fraud.

  • JoeB||

    Pacific Legal Foundation?

  • BigT||

    The TOS likely has/had a "we reserve the right to change the TOS at any time" clause.

  • Kivlor||

    It's been mentioned before on here, but in anything outside of the internet, a contract that states "I can change this contract at any time with as little notice as I decide, without your consent or input or negotiation and there's nothing you can do about it" would never be upheld. It's only in the ephemeral internet that judges permit this nonsense.

    A contract like this literally removes the mutual obligation portion of a contract. Especially because every TOS goes on to say that they don't promise you anything, but you promise them whatever they want today, and whatever they decide to rewrite the contract to say they want tomorrow.

  • Ken Shultz||

    +1

    Stating that you can change the terms of the contract at any time simply makes that clause invalid. Such a clause would mean that one party effectively has no duties to other. This isn't my opinion, by the way. My understanding is that this is established case law.

    If this guy invested years of his life, among other resources, creating content for Facebook with the understanding that he could establish a brand on Facebook, and then Facebook arbitrarily decides later to pull the rug out from under him, then they can't simply point to a clause that says "We have no obligations under this contract".

  • MJBinAL||

    Yep, Quid Pro Quo is required to have a valid contract.

    That clause effectively eliminates Quid Pro Quo. All obligations are one sided.

  • TangoDelta||

    To be fair, it's more of a FYTW diktat than a contract. It may wind up like the coal wars or maybe folk will realize they don't have to shop in the company store and leave.

  • Rock Lobster||

    Now that's "progressive!"

    They think such a clause also exists in the Constitution. It's one of those penumbras or emanations visible only to the faithful.

  • Aloysious||

    Shackléfart, if your Facederp feed is quiet, then you are better off.

  • Rob Misek||

    The corrupt need to censor the truth.

    Free speech on social media just represents unacceptable risk.

  • Kivlor||

    Corrupt? This is just the free market. We should celebrate this as libertarians.

  • VinniUSMC||

    Um, you can believe that "the corrupt need to censor the truth", that the free market allows it, and that it's something worthy of ridicule.

  • I can't even||

    Welcome to the party, pal.

  • Jerryskids||

    Now, in addition to deleting the pages, Facebook also deletes all of the data they've gathered from the users of those pages, right? I mean, that's the quid pro quo, isn't it? We let you use our platform, you let us use the information we glean from the use of the platform - if you don't get to use the platform, Facebook doesn't get to use the data. It would be sort of sleazy to change the rules and then say you still have to keep up your end of the bargain but we no longer have to keep up ours.

  • Kivlor||

    Hey, it's their platform Jerry, who are you to try to tell them what to do with it? Maybe you should've read those TOS if you've got a problem with it. Besides, this is the free market taking care of things the way it should.

    /s

  • ||

    Others were ad farms using Facebook to mislead people into thinking that they were forums for legitimate political debate.

    I see that https://www.facebook.com/cnn/ is still up though.

    At this point, I'm pretty well convinced that social media is somewhere between intellectual noise and blight.

  • BigT||

    Exactly. They were competing with Fakebook.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Sorry mutherfuckers, you cheered when Alex Jones was banned - it being a private company and all. Suck on it.

  • Uncle Adolf's Gas and Grill||

    First they came for Alex Jones, and I said nothing because I was not a conspiracy theorist.....

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    Then they came for libertarians and police accountability activists, and I still don't give a damn what faceplant does.

  • Tankboy||

    Then they came for me and I was OK with it. Facebook used to be fun, but now it's just for one stupid political exaggeration after another - I don't believe Trump can't read, I don't believe Hillary has people murdered, I don't believe Michelle O is a tranny. I won't miss it at all.

  • TLBD||

    You have to admit she has some pretty strange creases in her clothing.

  • Rock Lobster||

    ^^This^^

    All the "build a profile and post narcissistic BS" platforms always struck me as extremely creepy.

    Never-having-been-a-member-ship has its privileges.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    I wouldn't say they cheered, but they were sure quick to bend over to MUH PRINCIPLZ. It's like they're completely unable to fathom that a corporation that gets too big can be just as sclerotic and oppressive as a government that gets too big, especially when those two entitites work together.

    If the James Damore and Alex Jones incidents didn't cause them to question the applicability of suicidal altruism towards Big Tech and the quasi-governmental role it now plays in society, nothing short of being shut down permanently would do so.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Reason has reached out to both Facebook and Snopes to see if this fact-checking fight played any role the decision to shut down The Free Thought Project's page or any others affected by the purge.

    Sounds like you better enjoy Reason's Facebook page while you still can.

  • MoreFreedom||

    I didn't know Reason had a Facebook page. I hope they take it down soon, and quit contributing to Facebook's pockets. IMHO, Facebook, by censoring sites, is going to lose customers and revenue.

    I don't want to feed the beast, be it the government beast, or a company that wants to suppress support for freedom.

    Facebook collects data on you, and sells it to others including politicians with government power. And the politicians love Zuckerberg for doing it. Meanwhile politicians want to prosecute Assange for telling us what government officials are doing,

  • Alcibiades||

    Is the site where a bunch of disaffected Reason commenters decamped to a while back still around?

  • Hugh Akston||

    You're commenting on it right now.

  • Cyto||

    funny!

    www.glibertarians.com is for losers who don't say "to be sure" before venting their bile.

  • Alcibiades||

    Thanks!

  • BigT||

    Glibs is a bit of an echo chamber, although populated with interesting, intelligent characters.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Glibs is a bit of an echo chamber, although populated with interesting, intelligent characters.

    Wow. It's impressive that you could be so completely and utterly wrong so concisely.

  • Brandybuck||

    People demand conformity of thought, people are getting conformity of thought.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    The world will be a much better place when everyone thinks like Mark Zuckerberg.

  • MJBinAL||

    Mark Zuckerberg thinks? I thought he just parroted lines that make him seem cool to the "right" people.

  • Uncle Adolf's Gas and Grill||

    So the leftist alligator finally got around to eating the libertarians. Surprise! Surprise!

  • buybuydandavis||

    But the cocktail party invites made it *so* worth it.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    they don't think these sites were really trying to engage in political debate

    I'm good with Facebook making this judgement.

  • Kivlor||

    It's really for the best. This is the free market in action. Relegating unpopular ideas to the dustbin of history, the way a grocery store discards and stops buying/advertising produce that won't sell.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Many of them, like Bassler, used networking to build a community to reach a larger audience—a normal sort of organizing that Facebook now deems "inauthentic."

    Internet 1998: The internet's power to democratize speech and let regular citizens leverage their speech and reach millions of people is unparalleled in human history!

    Internet 2018: Oh shit, these idiots are reaching millions of people!

  • Uncle Adolf's Gas and Grill||

    As Joe Strummer once sang: you have the right to free speech - as long as you're not actually crazy enough to use it.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    It's all very messy, but even though Facebook is turning to Snopes

    Snopes has gone to shit now that it tries to vet "truth" instead of "fact".

    As Michael Moynihan once said on the Fif Column: It's a fact that the Japanese invaded pearl harbor on December 7th, 1941. It's not a "fact" why.

  • Longtobefree||

    Technically, they attacked, not invaded. And that's a fact.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    that is a fact, and I misspoke.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The Imperial Japanese did try to 'invade' midway island and were repelled.

  • Bluebonnet||

    I remember when Snopes concerned itself with collecting and categorizing urban legends aka modern oral traditions.
    Lately, their version of fact checking is so absurd it defies even urban legend's ability to create the absurd. They once "fact checked" a Babylon Bee article claiming CNN used literal washing machines to spin the news.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Snopes is a Lefty propaganda 'fact checking' outlet. They are liars like lefty propaganda putlets are liars.

  • BigT||

    True dat.

  • ||

    Snopes: Who? Reason? Those alt-right crazies?

    I'd like to know by what criteria did Snopes snag this gig?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    They're never wrong.

  • ||

    Ohhhhhh. Ahhhhhh.

  • Exsqueezeyou||

    Dopes use Snopes. Don't do it , kids. And FFS never ever google.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Use Lougle instead.

  • CE||

    My GeoCities page for a rational political party was depublished long ago.

  • JoeB||

    Keep it up, Reason,and you will be next subject of FB purge!

  • wareagle||

    clearly there is no place on FB for anything called Free Thought.

  • Rock Lobster||

    Only insofar as it generates revenue for FB. On FB all thought is ultimately a commodity. Always was.

    Virtual human trafficking, one might call it.

  • Outside the Box||

    Meh. As someone who works at a big tech company, I can tell you that lots of people *do* run all sorts of shady activity on such a site, and the site owners in turn put in place various algorithms to try to detect that, and guess what: IT'S NOT FUCKING EXACT. Everytime one of these algorithms mistakenly labels something legitimate as illegitimate, there are all of these outrages that somehow try to personify things as if "FACEBOOK" is a "person" and is making person-like decisions. It's a goddamned algorithm, not a conspiracy theory. Fraudsters do fraud things, the company creates counter measures to frustrated and/or identify them (and in the process have some false positives), the fraudsters change their behavior, the company has to create new counter-measures, rinse repeat. It's a battle, not a conspiracy theory. And typically, when a false positive does occur, it can be addressed on a manual basis. Having some idea of what these algorithms are looking for - the things that have been signs of true fraudulent activity in the past - I can see why some of these were identified by the algorithm.

    The idea that some SDE geek is paying attention to some spat between Snopes and the Free thought Project rather than trying to cash his paycheck and get promoted implementing some fraud algorithm is exactly the kind of terrible "personification" that drives me nuts.

  • Cyto||

    I agree with all of this.... except there's a caveat.

    It certainly seems that Facebook, Twitter, Google, et. al. are much more consistently erring in one political direction lately. And it isn't all that surprising that people might think so... they all publicly announced that they were going to work for Democrat causes several years ago and they've been consistent with that message ever since. So it isn't exactly being a conspiracy theory nut to think that perhaps all of the efforts to shut down the voices on the right are more than simple "false positives" in the ordinary, innocent application of optimization algorithms.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Quit whining.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    At least it will be easier to know where to send the right-wing death squads.

  • buybuydandavis||

    " are much more consistently erring in one political direction lately. "

    That's only because the winds of progress always blow to the left.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Lefty companies stear the game toward socialism.

    Some companies more than pthers. Some people more than others. We have video and transcripts of Lefties doing it. Its not a secret.

  • Jessi||

    Wrong. We have video of Twitter Jack and google founders endorsing political censorship on their platforms.

  • BigT||

    "the site owners in turn put in place various algorithms to try to detect that, and guess what: IT'S NOT FUCKING EXACT. Everytime one of these algorithms mistakenly labels something legitimate as illegitimate, there are all of these outrages that somehow try to personify things as if "FACEBOOK" is a "person" and is making person-like decisions. It's a goddamned algorithm"

    Just imagine the gubbamint doing this!

    Oh, wait....

  • TLBD||

    Somehow these algorithms rarely grab left wing organizations.

    Statistically speaking, if all they were doing was searching for fraud, this would be happening more frequently.

    Perhaps manual overrides are used for left wing orgs and not right wing? That is still intentional bias. Trying to make people think they are being silly by personifying algorithms is dishonest.

  • JFDeplorable||

    So Facebook uses Snopes as its fact-checker? Snopes is another arm of Alphabet (Google), a company that shares the point of view that anything not supportive of leftist ideology must be suppressed. Talk about a circle jerk!

  • MSimon||

    Child sex trafficking?

    Dr. Lonny Shavelson found that 70% of female heroin addicts were sexually abused in childhood.
    Shavelson

    Addiction is a symptom of PTSD. Look it up.

    Making war on the afflicted is not a moral policy.

  • vek||

    And this is why people should have been furious not only about Alex Jones, but even before that all the actual alt-right people who were shut down. If you don't force these platforms to be free speech across the board, they will inevitably push their own narrative... Which is decidedly leftist.

    Good going myopic libertarians!

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    If FB loses market share and some other social media platform grows as a result of FB's policies, they'll suffer enough to change back, or they'll be hanging out with Sears in the bankruptcy line. No force needed.

  • Kivlor||

    That's a nice pipe dream you've got there dude. It won't matter if the new lord of the fief treats you the same way as the old. Having a new lord still makes you a serf.

    Plus, as we have seen with the deplatforming issues, if the tech companies decide they want to go whole hog, there will be no competition, because they'll literally take websites down.

  • vek||

    That is how it should work in theory... In practice however it is far more complicated. They're entrenched, and buying out every single competitor that rises up against them. All the tech companies are basically doing it like this.

    You also ignore that WHO big money decides to back is often the company that will survive. Most of the mainstream leftist media loses money... Yet they stay in business. Why is that? Because some people want to control the narrative.

    ALSO, note that I didn't say they necessarily need to be regulated. I want to see them crash and burn, but as a libertarian I'm loathe to do that... I said that PEOPLE were morons for waving away, and not giving them ENORMOUS AMOUNTS OF SHIT when they removed a lot of hard right people, including actual alt-right people, then went after Alex Jones, who is a total cuckservative in most respects.

    There should have been a massive shit storm against them over that stuff... But because people are idiots, they didn't go after them because they didn't care to defend them. Now even more mainstream conservatives and libertarians are in the crosshairs. They need to be made to realize this shit is NOT ACCEPTABLE.

    FB could die out in theory from blow back in the long term, but in the short term they literally have to power to swing national elections. So does Google. They need to be held to account for their biases NOW, because the alternative could be dire.

  • mhj||

    First they came for Alex Jones. But i wasn't Aex Jones so i didn't say anything.

    Next, they came for the libertarians...

    This idea that FB and Twitter can do whatever they want to whomever they want because the First Amendment doesn't apply needs some serious thinking as to the implications of a tiny number of immense firms controlling so much of our information environment and erecting enormous barriers to entry. At a certain scale, one that FB has certainly reached, they may become natural monopolies due to network effects.

    This all needs much more serious thought than anybody but esp. Reason, has given it. Simplistic, rote cant isn't good enough, and it is very late in the day.

  • Jessi||

    Facebook is in violation of their TOS with these shutsowns, and then lying about the reason is libel & fraud.

    Should be actionable.

    Alex Jones should sue too.

  • BigT||

    With the number of people involved, it could be class action, and attract some high end legal help.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Put J. Christian Adams, Eugene Volokh, and Michael Cohen on it.

  • vek||

    I believe Alex Jones actually is bring suits against some companies over the recent stuff, specifically because they violated their own TOS.

    Thankfully he is somebody who actually has the cash to do stuff like this, as almost nobody else they're going after does. AJ probably has 100x the views and income that Reason does.

  • vek||

    mhj, totally. They're achieved effective monopoly status in many markets. Big tech is the most concentrated amount of power we've ever had in industry really. Even Big Oil, Steel, etc were not nearly as concentrated as these guys are.

    And frankly, information is in some ways more important than commodities. If, for instance, Google had been objective in their news results during 2016, let alone the media itself being neutral... Trump may well have won the popular vote, and several more states electoral votes. They have the power to swing things by probably millions of votes through subtle means. The New York Times couldn't do that in 1900.

  • Cloudbuster||

    Facebook is poison. Trusting them to host your content and farm your activity was always a mistake. It never should have evolved beyond a venue for college hookups.

  • Kivlor||

    As we march down the road to literal serfdom I will have at least a small consolation knowing that libertarians will get either chains or the bullet too.

    The irony of watching the people who are ostensibly "pro freedom" endlessly clamor for chains is not missed on some of us. Chains are chains, and a master is a master, whether you call him government, or corporation, or simply "my lord".

    Sadly, the new feudalism will be far more oppressive than the old, for at least the old was somewhat tempered by the Church, by obligation not only of the serf to his lord, but the lord to his people. The new feudalism will be completely devoid of this, as we see with the TOS that are endlessly defended by those self-styled protectors of liberty as perfectly fine.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    So what is your solution? Kill the lefties? Nationalize Facebook? What?

  • vek||

    Well, it may well come down to killing the lefties. That's mostly up to them. If they become saner again, they may be spared... But if they keep pushing, it is entirely possible it will come to that.

    I hope the market does sort things out, and these big tech companies take more neutral stances... But if they don't, I think it would be possible to write sensible laws that require neutrality. For instance something as simple as "No post may be blocked on any internet forum, messaging service, etc that is legal under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution."

    This will mean lots of offensive shit will get posted, and some people won't like it... But it also expands freedom. Everybody can still compete with each other on a multitude of fronts, like design, functionality, etc of their platforms... But no shit canning people because they say things people don't like.

  • Stephen Lathrop||

    Stop sniveling righties, and reach for your pro-liberty, free-market solutions.

    Liberty first. It is about free speech. Which means that any private company can be as biased as it prefers to be, in everything it publishes. And which also means that whatever the company refuses to publish is not thereby censored. Because censorship means government control, not private editing.

    Now, free market. You can't have a workable, healthy free market without government. Sorry about that. Maybe that offends libertarian ideology. Too bad. Any ideology which says otherwise is just wrong. So put ideological scruples aside, and start advocating for the break-up of the big internet monopolies. With that accomplished, all your other worries about content are solved, because a zillion smaller platforms will take the place of the giants, and assure access to opinion of every kind.

    Best of all, the two principles can be combined, to minimize governments' involvement. Just go back to customary standards regarding defamation and copyright—standards which supported customary publishing for hundreds of years, without invoking government at all, except for the use of its courtrooms, and the enforcement of civil law judgments. Under those standards, internet giantism would be impossible, and publishing diversity would be renewed.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Stop sniveling righties, and reach for your pro-liberty, free-market solutions.

    Confiscating 98% of the income of all registered Democrats would be a good start.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Why are you even here with comments like that?

    I get it, you want to punish your political enemies. That is not even a remotely libertarian idea.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Eat shit, quisling.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    No no, let's hear more about your idea to levy ideologically-based tax rates, and how this could work in practice. Gee, that same power couldn't ever be abused, could it? Do you even care? Is your desire to "destroy the Left" so large that you don't even care about the long-term consequences of what you advocate?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    That NR cruise ticket isn't going to pay for itself.

    Just because you're happy to be hanged by the people who hate you in the name of MUH PRINCIPLZ doesn't mean everyone else should follow you up the gallows.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    There aren't going to be any hangings, or gulags, or death camps.

    What there are, are people like yourself who cannot deal with the complexity of differences of opinion, and instead retreat to caricatures of your opponents in order to justify the rightness of your own views.

    If you actually had to confront your opponents' actual positions, honestly and openly, it may cause you to question some of your own beliefs. But you can't have that, and so you paint them as evil irredeemible monsters.

    And by the way, I wouldn't be caught dead on an NR cruise.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    If you actually had to confront your opponents' actual positions, honestly and openly, it may cause you to question some of your own beliefs.

    "If you took left-wing opinions at face value you'd respect them, too!"

    Yeah, no thanks.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    It's easy to be the good guy when your opponent is Sauron.

    So, you just pretend that all your opponents are Sauron.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    It's easy to be magnanimous when you ignore that your opponent is Sauron.

  • vek||

    The truth is Jeff, it doesn't matter if ALL of our opponents are Sauron... They are all Orcs. During WWII, most of the German people weren't horrible people... But they were supporting the German war machine. Therefore, they had to be taken out.

    Nice people that believe in idiotic things like socialism nowadays are the same. They're not all evil... That's mostly just people like the Clinton's, Soros, etc. But they're enabling those bad people. Collateral damage is unavoidable.

    If we can convince them of their being wrong, that's awesome! But if they stick to defending evil laws and politicians, if shit gets real, then they might get taken down along with those evil people.

  • MJBinAL||

    This is actually my concern.

    To put this simply, if you want to be left alone and want to leave others alone, you should be of no threat to anyone. Unfortunately, progressives/socialists insist that no one can be left alone, they must comply.

    For example, no one cares if Progs were to buy 10,000 acres somewhere and for a socialist commune. But the Progs will not do this because the insist that the commune must be the entire country, no exceptions. Perhaps it is because they know otherwise all those who are willing to work will eventually leave the commune if they can so they must be fenced in.

    In any case, the point will be reached where the "leave me alones" are going to decide that the only way to resolve the issue is to kill enough Progs to MAKE them "leave me alone". I have the feeling that this point is coming much more quickly than most believe.

  • Stephen Lathrop||

    The South will rise again?

  • Stephen Lathrop||

    MJBinAL, who gets to decide about all that "leaving alone?" Seems like you have it figured that there are a lot of people out there who won't leave you alone, so you get to decide. Leaving aside that that doesn't seem too logical, it does suggest a question: do they get to decide, too? What if they decide, and conclude you and your fellow insurrectionists aren't leaving them alone? Are you still morally right, and them still morally wrong, just because? Or is it supposed to mean only you ever had a right to decide the "leaving alone" questions in the first place?

    I get that you probably suppose no answer would affect the outcome of that insurrection you seem to want, but what does it say about your moral case for killing people? Because a lot of folks do think moral justifications play a part in deciding armed conflicts, especially if the conflicts are prolonged. So do you think your little insurrection is going to take out all the progressives overnight?

    As for how your insurrection turns out, this nation has had at least 3 notable insurrections, and the insurrectionists lost all of them. That's if you don't count Indian insurrections, of course. Not sure how many of those there were, but we all know how many were Indian victories, right? Past results do not predict future outcomes, of course.

  • vek||

    MJBinAL, exactly. Leftists insist everybody do what they want. I would be MORE THAN HAPPY for the leftists to go buy a ton of land and form a massive socialist utopia on it. No problem from me.

    It actually occurred to me the other day that there are already mechanisms in place for leftists to create an opt in universal healthcare system. There are still religious mutual aide societies that one simply sends in a very modest monthly donation to, and they will cover 100% of your medical expenses. I know a family that did this because they were very religious, and it was VERY cheap compared to insurance. Leftists could form such an organization, and everybody would have their health needs covered! If 40% of the country opted in, they'd be good. But they want to FORCE ME to join them in their BS.

    Stephen, how am I trying to interfere with what leftists want? I'm not trying to jack their taxes. Tell them they can't be gay, or smoke weed, or anything else. THEY are the ones who are initiating force. SOME on the traditional right do want to force things on them, but not libertarians. Hence libertarians are always in the right morally.

  • vek||

    So if we're not trying to force things on them, and are happy to leave them alone, then they can piss off with all their crap they're trying to shove down my throat!

    Insofar as insurrections go... It may well be the government that is in the hands of right/libertarian leaning people.

    Most of the country geographically leans conservative, and has conservatives running their local/state government. The Feds go back and forth of course, but are always right around 50%, if not more, conservative. All of the necessities of life are provided by conservative areas (food, energy, manufactured goods, etc). Big cities would fall to their knees in a matter of days if they were cut off. Conservatives own the overwhelming majority of the firearms. The military leans strongly to the right.

    And simply put, the majority of people politically in the USA are center-right or further than that to the right. The ultra progressive coastal tools, who are the ones pushing all the proper crazy stuff, are a minuscule minority.

  • vek||

    So this isn't like the Civil War where it was 5 million white southerners versus 21 million in the north...

    This is 50%+ of the population being tired of having ~10% of the population shoving shit down their throats. In short it might BE the government and most of the people effectively putting down an insurrectionist left wing "resistance" movement.

    If there's a Dem president at the time, they would easily be removed from power by legal means, depending on the circumstances. Like if they're blatantly trying to break the constitution in a severe way, or do something crazy they could be impeached, or potentially jailed or what have you. Or if stuff gets real hairy the military will not back the left doing anything too crazy.

    50/50 left/right split is literally the worst case scenario if it comes to violence, but realistically it will tilt in the rights favor. We've never had an evenly split revolt, and at worst that is what we have now... But with one side holding all the strategic advantages, and it ain't the left! So if I were a leftists, I'd certainly think twice before pushing THAT envelope, because they have a 0% chance of winning if it comes to violence.

  • buybuydandavis||

    The "pro-liberty, free-market solutions" would be for the Right to engage in ingroup preference and outgroup attack as relentlessly, ruthlessly, and corruptly as the Left.

    They could start with government and corporate identity quotas and preferences for demographics that favor the Right instead of the Left.

  • dchang0||

    How convenient that this purge happened right before the midterms...

    Gotta give props to Alex Jones for predicting that more purges would happen between his blacklisting and the midterms.

  • George J. Dance||

    Facebook now offers a feature they call "Boost" - they will spam your page posts to a number of readers, selected by profile, themselves for a small fee per post. They're heavily promoting Boost: I get notices almost every day telling me to boost posts for my poetry blog's page or for 2 other pages I'm an inactive admin on. It looks to me like they're trying to cut down on this "inauthentic" community networking, because it's letting people achieve the same results without paying for Boost.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Spambook naturally isn't going to allow competition on their own platform.

  • davido||

    ABC News website regularly deletes conservative views they don't like. Here is verbatim my post about Kanye West that was removed. You be the Judge.

    Discussion on ABC News 1517 comments
    Kanye West to meet Trump at White House
    do2me 2 days ago
    Removed

    An independent Black man dares to go off the Left plantation and the dogs (read: the media) are loosed. Oh, he's mentally ill! Real reason: Any Democrat Presidential candidate needs 90% of the Black vote and no dissent is allowed. Kanye must be destroyed by toadies like Don Lemon and the water-carriers of MSNBC.
    Here's something profound he said: "I won't be controlled by racism."
    Every Black person in America ought to pay attention to the reverse racism of the Left, especially those living in big cities controlled for decades by Democrats that are all disasters.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Your comment isn't offensive, at least to me. It's just boring. You're just repeating all the usual tropes from talk radio, etc.

  • Stephen Lathrop||

    davido, I don't see a problem with it either. Any media website that doesn't care if it publishes angry twaddle ought to be fine with it. I think maybe the problem here is that the experience of having your stuff published, but taken down afterward, seems somehow worse than if an editor had just tossed it in the first place. But that's all that really happened. And ABC News seems like it hasn't yet got rid of editing, so what do you have to complain about? That you get edited?

  • vek||

    The point is that they allow left leaning posts that are 100x more offensive, 100x more ridiculous, and 100x less factual.

    They're not just removing posts they think don't add to the discussion... They're removing posts from a certain viewpoint, irregardless of its content. This happens all over mainstream media sites. Many have simply removed commenting, because they didn't like what the proles were posting. Propaganda only works if you don't allow people to see opposing view points.

  • Stephen Lathrop||

    vek, you don't even seem to be trying. Speech freedom means it isn't for you, or for anyone, to tell a private publisher what points of view it has to publish. The standard isn't offensiveness. It isn't ridiculousness. It isn't factuality. And it isn't balance. The standard is the publisher's freedom.

    I don't blame you if you are frustrated about what monopolistic media do, and refuse to do. Because monopoly means you don't get much choice, and the range of published viewpoints shrinks accordingly. So consider that, and recognize where your objections belong. Demand changes to shrink the monopolies, so there is more room for competing publications, with a full range of viewpoints, including yours.

  • vek||

    Look, if you're going to say that freedom of speech, and the freedom of publishers to do WTF ever they want is absolute... Fine. I agree in principle.

    However you then go on to say we should address the monopoly found in media... How do you propose doing that without ALSO violating their rights, probably in an even more severe way?

    I'm not even necessarily saying that we should DO anything about these MSM outlets that are nothing more than propaganda mouthpieces for the left anymore... I'm just saying that they're garbage for being what they have become, and that anyone who doesn't recognize they're propaganda outlets intentionally pushing an agenda is an idiot. Because that's all they are.

    I can criticize them for being pieces of shit all I want, even within libertarian principles!

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Well, this is also freedom of association, even if we don't like it. The true test of supporters of liberty is whether they support liberty even when it personally disadvantages themselves. Otherwise, "libertarianism" is just a pose disguising authoritarian self-interest.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    The true test of supporters of liberty is whether they support liberty even when it personally disadvantages themselves

    Chemjeff's suicidal altruism is why "supporters of liberty" tend to get emulsified outside of societal safe havens.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    It's not altruism. It's looking at the big picture. Defending liberty as a long-term effort outweighs any short-term gain that might accrue personally from violating other people's liberty.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Nah, emulsifying leftists is a better long-term solution.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    And what is your big plan?

    Create an authoritarian state to "destroy the Left"?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Stop the hand-wringing mewling, it's pathetic.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    You forgot to put on your Tulpa sock for that one.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Stop crying.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Yeah you're right, I should just shut up and accept that mass murder of leftists is the libertarian solution! Amirite?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    More drama queening from chemjeff radical SJW

  • MJBinAL||

    I have not heard any one here advocate for mass murder of leftists.

    That said, only a poor student of history would believe that the current deterioration of freedom in the public space is not leading in the general direction of armed conflict. You don't have to WANT that result to recognize the POTENTIAL of that result.

    Some here believe that it would be better to lift the constrictions being placed on freedom and avoid continued deterioration than to allow things to continue until we get armed conflict.

    You seem to believe that doing nothing (taking the long view) is the right path, whereas others believe that doing nothing leads to disaster in the long view.

    As a pattern, we seem to be headed toward progressive fascism. Antifa breaking heads of those who disagree, the mayor running interference for them in Portland and increasing censorship of alternative views on social media are completely consistent with Nazi methods updated to today's technology. As a general pattern, I am very concerned on our path.

  • MJBinAL||

    Add in the current progressive causes like #metoo that advocate for the elimination of any assumption of innocence and the imposition of accusation equals guilt and the pattern looks very bad to me.

    Summarize the progressive direction:
    * You can only speak to a broad audience if we approve of what you are saying.
    * If you do things or advocate things we oppose in public, we will beat you, perhaps kill you, so stay home and stay quiet.
    * If we accuse you of something, proof is not required. In fact, you demanding proof simply demonstrates you guilt.

  • Qsl||

    The true test of supporters of liberty is whether they support liberty even when it personally disadvantages themselves.

    You get the sense supporters of libertarianism (hell, any ideology) would jump ship in an instant if they think they could get a higher rate of return elsewhere.

    As is, there are numerous conflicting "liberties" (right of contract, freedom of association, freedom of speech, etc.) that libertarians can pick and choose as most benefits them in that instant, and in the very next breath confound.

    Even the market argument that the actions by Facebook leaves the market wide open for a competitor kinda rings hollow.

    Authoritarian self-interest is actually a pretty apt description of the popular version of libertarianism.

  • vek||

    There are times and places where that works Jeff, and times where the stakes are too high. I'm not sure where we're at with big tech in this instance. But for now I lean towards letting it sort itself out. But that opinion may change.

    There's a reason no purist libertarian nation, that obeyed libertarian principles in 100% of cases has ever existed... Because it can't. The founding fathers KILLED PEOPLE because they disagreed with their political ideology. The ignored the will of the majority of Americans by declaring independence, and then dragging everybody else along for the ride.

    There's a time and a place for taking the high ground, and there's a time and a place for kicking ass and chewing bubble gum. America right now is somewhere in between those two extremes... But I think we're inching towards the kicking ass stage personally.

  • Rob Misek||

    Social media is the greatest communication advancement next to the written word.

    It enables all peoples of the world to communicate real time about any issue and enables both video and audio so there can be no confusion.

    The propaganda masters of mainstream media never saw it coming. Old rules of propaganda don't apply when people can research and share the truth easily from the comfort and safety of their homes.

    We've seen most news media websites close their comments sections or censor them to present their bias as truth.

    Now they are deleting inconvenient facts as they find them.

    This is all an effort to control you by misinforming you and manipulating your choices. It is war.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    We've seen most news media websites close their comments sections or censor them to present their bias as truth.

    Oh good heavens. I think most media companies understand that their bullhorn is a lot bigger than yours, even on their own comments boards.

    I think a more likely explanation is that they didn't want to deal with moderating comments from shitposters and asshats. Not some conspiracy to hide the truth.

  • Rob Misek||

    Aren't you the useful idiot?

    You don't believe in propaganda either eh?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Oh I believe in propaganda all right.

    But I really don't think most news outlets closed down their commenting boards because they were afraid random commenters were going to "expose their lies" or somesuch.

  • Rob Misek||

    You believe they shut down social media news commentary, one of the greatest human achievements in communication, to be polite.

    AND you believe they employ propaganda to manipulate our behaviour, control us.

    Sucks to be you.

  • Stephen Lathrop||

    Rob, your fulsome esteem for social media needs revision. Until social media develop a business model to support professional news gathering, they can't replace the traditional media you don't like. When it comes to exposing lies—which seem to rank high among your vivid concerns—media (social or otherwise) can't do it without editors. No editors means all the lies get published.

    As you seem (with your propaganda references) to acknowledge, you shouldn't count on readers to pick out the few morsels of truth on a plate heaped with lies. Alas—because no editing—a plate heaped with lies is exactly what social media serves up every day. Apparently they have no intention, nor any clue, how to improve that, except by haphazardly (and likely mistakenly) trying to identify the worst among what they published, and deleting those afterward. As a method for delivering truth, that sucks.

    All that would be small potatoes if social media organizations weren't also monopolistic giants, crowding out competition, and leaving both authors and consumers without meaningful choice. So think about it systematically, in terms of these notions: less monopoly, a business model to support news gathering and editing, more competition, press freedom, and keeping government out. Where do you find that combination in today's social media?

  • Rob Misek||

    Criminalize lying.

    What were you saying?

  • vek||

    LOL You're a riot Jeff.

    Why do you think that all these websites had comments sections for a decade plus, and all of a sudden most of the most popular media outlets ALL decided to stop having them within such a short span of time? The few that still have comments sections have a funny habit of specifically removing only viewpoints that don't jive with the narrative that media outlet pushes.

    Trolling was as big a deal 10 years ago as it is now. They all changed their mind at the same time because they knew they were losing their grip on the narrative. This is the same reason previously neutral, or at least less slanted, algorithms have all been slanted in a certain direction too. Why the need to remove right wing accounts on YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, etc all of a sudden? They've all been on there for years, and the world never seemed to come to an end. So why now?

    If one thing happens that has a certain end result, it's just a thing happening. When two things, it's odd, but could be a coincidence. When 100 things all seem to "randomly" happen that are all achieving the same end, it's likely not a coincidence anymore.

    It's not like powerful people using their power and influence to push things the direction they want is a new concept. The powerful ALWAYS do this. Why are you surprised that the elite of today does the same thing every elite has always done?

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    Chemjeff Status Quo Collectivist is really in overdrive, defending his fellow members of the JournoList.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Wait, so now I'm a "fellow member" of the JournoList?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    "Please left-wing NPCs, kill me last!"

  • Freciah||

    No one deserve to be cheated on you can confront your cheating spouse with evidence,i was able to spy on my cheating husband phone without finding out.....it really helped me during my divorce ....you can contact 'hacksecrete@gmail . c o m' call or text him on 617 402-2260 for spying and hacking social networks, school servers, icloud and much more,viber chats hack, Facebook messages and yahoo messenger,calls log and spy call recording, monitoring SMS text messages remotely,cell phone GPS location tracking, spy on Whats app Messages,his services are cheap and affordable .

  • No Yards Penalty||

    Remember when this used to be a libertarian site, rather than a place pants-shitting Contards would infect when they got bored crapping their crap on The Federalist threads? Or trying to recruit Klansman at Brietard?
    So depressing.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    I remember when wastes of carbon molecules like you could actually come up with some original insults instead of the same copypasta shitlib bleatings.

  • Eddy||

    Yeah, I collect rent in some bad neighborhoods and I want to hire some of your bodyguards to protect myself...wait a minute, what do you mean you don't do that? What kind of escorts are you?

  • Steve8||

    If you want a durable presence on the internet get your own internet domain and publish under it. Do not rely on third parties like Facebook, Twitter, Blogspot, etc.

  • Rob Misek||

    Build a wall eh?

  • vek||

    The truly scary thing is that they've been going after people doing this also.

    Some people have had their domains stolen by registrars because they didn't like their content. The whole "No, we won't allow you to process credit cards" thing too. If you remove the ability for somebody to register a domain name, and deny them the ability to receive income... That's basically making it impossible for them to operate.

  • jmlandry||

    When I buy a phone it has FB, Twitter and YouTube preinstalled. These websites are monopolies.

    Then they start their mass censorship, sure they are private corporations- markets cornered.

    Sometimes the government needs to step in and stop these behaviors. Standard oil and Ma Bell come to mind.

    Maybe Trump needs to do some busting.

  • Stephen Lathrop||

    You want those markets uncornered? It would be easy to do. Just kick out the congressionally-installed prop which built the corner in the first place—which is Section 230. When congress passed Section 230, it made it possible for internet media to vacuum up all content, and publish it all, without reading anything. In short order, that, plus network effects, delivered publishing monopolies multiple orders of magnitude larger, and more comprehensively monopolistic, than anything seen previously.

    As a side-detriment, it also meant that far too much of what got published would be swill, lies, calumny, or defamation. Why? Because without editing, everything gets published, and that nasty stuff is a surprisingly large part of everything. Always has been. But back in the days when publishing meant privately edited content, the bad stuff got screened, by private editors with a competitive stake in quality publication. Now, no editors, no screen, random quality—and private monopoly media all the way down.

    Don't like the result? Get rid of Section 230.

  • MJBinAL||

    Not JUST installed, but locked so they can't be deleted!

  • buybuydandavis||

    "but were in fact spam factories trying to make money"

    Facebook doesn't like the competition.

  • croaker||

    I have a dream, that a certain compound in Hawaii gets raided by SWAT and Zuckerberg dragged out in leg irons and belly chains for interference in a federal election, and Facebook faces civil forfeiture. It would be the first instance in a long time where CF is justified.

  • Uncle Jay||

    Thank God for Facebook's censors.
    Otherwise all the little people might see all cop's misdeeds.
    No police state can tolerate that.

  • Number 2||

    On August 28, 2018, Professor Volokh ran this post about Sen. Ron Wyden threatening social media sites with the loss of their statutory immunity for member postings if the sites did not "clean up their act," and opining that said social media sites "would not last one week" if they faced liability over postings.

    https://reason.com/volokh/2018/08/ 28/senator-ron-wyden-co-author-of-cda-tryin

    Shortly thereafter, Facebook starts to delete pages that assert non-mainstream, anti-government perspectives from both left and right.

    I am sure this is a coincidence.

  • Kratoklastes||

    The Catholic Church was big on de-platforming shit its hierarchy didn't like; that worked for a while, and then it didn't, pretty spectacularly... and when the Micks were doing it they had far more social control than FB/Twatter do, and informational timelines were far longer.

    Nowadays they can't even keep their paedophiles from public scrutiny.

    People who think that you can run a walled garden forever, need to read Genesis: literally the only thing that the Old Nonsense gets right, is that if you tell a human being 'you must not eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil' ... you're going to lose fruit.

    Doubtless some third-quintile marketing hack at FB has run the numbers (in Excel) and determined that FB's most profitable demographic is the sort of person who is too stupid to realise they're in a walled garden.

    That business model has worked for the soi-disant tech sophisticates in the iCult, but FB hasn't got the lure of low-spec monotasking hardware; nobody's queueing for days to acquire the latest update to FB.

    Facebook changed the narrative nicely though: nobody is talking about how their back-end is so hopeless that somebody rammed their cyberfist through FB's cybersphincter and made of with a few-bajillion people's data.

    Given that the median IQ of FBtards is about 85, what's the over on 90% of them having one password for every site?

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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