YouTube Has the Right To Shut Down Rand Paul. That Doesn't Mean It Should.
Big tech platforms should encourage debate, not forbid it.
Big tech platforms should encourage debate, not forbid it.
Plus: Biden won't budge on Afghanistan, the link between cruise ship vaccine passports and free speech, and more...
Online censorship by proxy undermines the ordinary process for checking claims and counterclaims.
Libertarian History/Philosophy
The comedian and podcaster talks about running for the Libertarian Party presidential nomination and his beef with Reason.
The administration’s public pressure campaign against COVID-19 "misinformation" cannot be reconciled with its avowed respect for freedom of expression.
Federal health bureaucrats should stop scapegoating social media.
Also, regulation is (still) not the answer to online misinformation.
The existence of politically biased websites is not a crisis.
Speech is protected by the First Amendment even when it discourages vaccination.
White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki wants the social media site to ban 12 specific anti-vaccine accounts.
The rationales for doing so are weak, and would create a dangerous slippery slope, if accepted.
It will fail, and fail badly.
Corporations can afford robots. Their competitors often cannot.
Efforts against violence are turning into restrictions on ideas.
Plus: Retaliatory action in Syria, developments with the delta variant, Clarence Thomas on marijuana, and more...
Taken together, these six measures would have a major impact on the way we shop, chat, and otherwise go about our business online.
People fret about online echo chambers, but offline echo chambers can be just as strong—or stronger.
How reactionary politicians are using monopoly concerns as cover to pursue pre-existing political agendas
Plus: Prosecutors are big lobbyists for new crime bills, Biden floats compromise on corporate taxes, and more...
“The Act is so rife with fundamental infirmities that it appears to have been enacted without any regard for the Constitution,” the lawsuit reads.
We expect British royals to favor muzzling commoners, but too many lawmakers feel the same way.
It's a working model for non-state governance in cyberspace that is vastly preferable to government control of social media.
A member of the board (and a Cato Institute vice president) defends the controversial decision to kick the former president off the social media platform.
Facebook can't kill, jail, or tax you. It can only stop you from posting on Facebook.
"It's very obvious that nobody involved in [the bill] consulted a First Amendment lawyer," says TechFreedom's Berin Szóka.
"At the time of Mr. Trump's posts, there was a clear, immediate risk of harm."
If you're going to attack Mark Zuckerberg for cozying up to Xi Jinping, maybe you should try harder not to sound like a Chinese dictator.
Hawley’s legislation would give officials more room to unilaterally punish business behaviors they personally don’t like.
A moot case about Trump blocking tweets leads to concerns that tech companies have too much control over speech.
What about the federal government's own health experts?
Even minor tweaks to the law could shore up Mark Zuckerberg's dominance.
Politicians on the right and the left are coming for your free speech.
The whole thing is arguably voided by Section 230.
Big outlets get subsidies. The government still gets to pick winners and losers.
This tech/media fight down under is not about democracy or monopolies. It’s about ad revenue.
You may have seen stories about the operation of Facebook's new and innovative "Supreme Court." Don't believe 'em.
Online companies might not be as nefarious as you think.
The first-in-the-nation tax is an expensive and regressive policy that's also possibly unconstitutional.
Techdirt's founder wants to give end users, not politicians and tech giants, more control over what we can say and see online.
No one has a right to a Facebook platform, but purges can and should be criticized.
After a 16-month investigation into the big four tech companies, it seems the most that congressional busybodies can accuse them of is routine business practices and having popular services.
Aaron Reynolds is just trying to make people laugh, but his content may have been flagged on Instagram for interfering with the election.
The more that big social media companies act like they can control what people say, the more competition they encourage.
Plus: Sexual misconduct at the FBI, Tulsi Gabbard and Mike Lee don't understand the First Amendment, and more...
Aaron Reynolds, the creator of "Swear Trek" and "Effin' Birds," talks about living and dying by Instagram's algorithms.
Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.
This modal will close in 10