Deplatforming

How To Respond to the Great Deplatforming of 2021

We need an open digital commons, where individuals maintain ownership of their own identities and where speech is highly resistant to political pressure. 

|

HD Download

President Donald Trump's response to last week's attack on the U.S. Capitol led Twitter to permanently ban him from its platform, and Facebook and YouTube closed his accounts on the grounds that he had used their platforms to incite violence.

Then Apple and Google banned Twitter competitor Parler from its app stores, on the grounds that the perpetrators of last week's Capitol riot used it to coordinate the attack and because the service lacked adequate content moderation. Next, Amazon, which owns about a third of the global cloud storage market, evicted Parler from its cloud hosting service, causing the site to go down entirely.

These decisions drew a ferocious reaction, both for and against, from people of all political stripes.

"For better or worse," as Edward Snowden said after Trump was kicked off Twitter, "this will be remembered as a turning point in the battle for control over digital speech."

"It is stunning to watch now as every War on Terror rhetorical tactic to justify civil liberties erosions is now being invoked in the name of combatting Trumpism," wrote journalist Glenn Greenwald.

So how should those who value a free and open society feel about the deplatforming of the commander in chief, the ongoing purge of many of his supporters, and repression of discussion of 2020 election voter fraud claims?

Twitter is a private company and CEO Jack Dorsey's capacity to evict even the president of the United States is something to be grateful for. But what if the network power of a handful of Silicon Valley giants is so great that there's nowhere for the evicted to turn? And are Facebook, Twitter, and Google acting independently, or are they bending to the will of Congress at a time when tech has become so deeply politicized?

The takeaway from the great deplatforming of 2021 is that we need an open digital commons more than ever, a place where individuals maintain ownership of their own identities and where speech is highly resistant to political pressure.

Decentralized networks are vital to protecting open discourse not only from Twitter, Facebook, and Google, but from Sen. Ted Cruz (R–Texas), Sen. Josh Hawley (R–Mo.), President-elect Joe Biden, and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris, who have the real power to stomp on the free speech rights of American citizens.

It's easy to forget that Twitter's Jack Dorsey and Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg embraced the concept of a neutral "public square" not long ago. Zuckerberg told Congress in July 2020, "We do not want to become the arbiters of truth."

But the shift from digital commons to an actively curated news feed was underway long before the election. In October 2020, Facebook suppressed and Twitter blocked the sharing of a New York Post story claiming that Biden met with an executive at a Ukrainian gas company where his son held a board seat.

Twitter also blocked the New York Post from using its account for more than two weeks.

When New York Times contributing opinion writer Kara Swisher grilled Parler CEO, John Matze, about the platform's role in inciting the Capitol breach, he defended Parler's hands-off approach:

Swisher: …going into the Capitol building to do this, if it was organized on your site, what should happen on your site?

Matze: Look, if it was illegally organized and against the law and what they were doing, they would have gotten it taken down. But I don't feel responsible for any of this and neither should the platform, considering we're a neutral town square that just adheres to the law. 

The handful of companies that own the dominant share of social media and the underlying infrastructure of the internet disagree, and they've made it increasingly difficult for Parler to operate.

But the greatest threat isn't coming from Silicon Valley.

To get what they want from tech CEOs, both Republicans and Democrats have regularly threatened to strip away the liability protections provided by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which is sometimes known as the internet's "First Amendment."

Democrats want to leverage Section 230 to force them to weed out misinformation, which they falsely imagine can be sorted out by panels of accredited experts or fine-tuned algorithms. Republicans have threatened to repeal Section 230 unless platforms commit to "viewpoint neutrality," a standard that Daphne Keller of Stanford's Cyber Policy Center told Reason in June 2019, is impossible to uphold.

"I don't even know what being neutral would mean," said Keller. "Would it mean allowing every single thing to be uploaded and just showing it in chronological order? Can you be neutral if you have search features? Can you be neutral if you allow people to mute things? I think a truly neutral—meaning showing everything that is legal—social media platform would be full of content that most users don't want to see."

The incoming Biden administration and Congress have signaled their intention to introduce new national security and speech laws. Biden is making a public push for a new domestic terrorism law and red-flag laws, which would make it easier for federal agents to seize firearms based on users' online posts.

"[P]erhaps [America's] way of thinking about free speech is not the best way," wrote Emily Bazelon in The New York Times Magazine in October 2020. "At the very least, we should understand that it isn't the only way."

She further argues that European speech regulations "have created better conditions for their citizenry to sort what's true from what's not and to make informed decisions about what they want their societies to be."

But, in the European Union, these regulations have created the unintended consequence of flagging content that's disturbing yet vital to the public interest, such as an archive of Syrian war crimes wrongly flagged as "terrorist content" under the E.U. guidelines. 

"Right now we don't have any clear information telling us that taking down all of these videos really is making us safer," says Keller of the E.U. regulations. "In fact, a lot of people who are expert researchers on security are concerned that this will effectively drive more people into darker corners of the internet, into echo chambers where they only ever hear from people who agree with a violent agenda."

A study from psychologist Richard Rogers found that a robust network of deplatformed figures has already emerged over the past several years on encrypted apps like Telegram, which has become a refuge for extremist content but which is also a preferred platform of pro-democracy activists in Hong Kong trying to avoid Chinese censorship and surveillance. 

A transition to a new, more decentralized and private web may be accelerating as privacy-centric DuckDuckGo has experienced significant growth in search as an alternative to Google, and the encrypted messaging app Signal saw a big bump after Elon Musk encouraged the masses to install it.

With a crackdown in progress and likely to intensify once the new administration settles in, we should focus instead on enhancing encrypted communication platforms that make online speech harder to control, and resisting law enforcement efforts to weaken vital tools like end-to-end encryption.

There's a lot that still needs building to create an alternative digital commons, but it can be accomplished. Communicating freely might take more work in the future, and your favorite politician might get banned or your favorite app taken out of the store. But in this cat-and-mouse game, the mice far outnumber the cats.

That said, in the short term, the decision makers at Twitter and Facebook may want to consider that repression tends to have the unfortunate effect of pushing legitimate dissidents and dangerous, unsavory extremists into the same channels.

Sigmund Freud theorized that when thoughts or experiences are repressed, they inevitably resurface in more deranged and damaging forms. When our dominant communication platforms seek to repress widely held beliefs and opinions, those beliefs and opinions aren't likely to simply disappear but rather reemerge elsewhere in less visible forums where they'll face less scrutiny.

The next few years may be ugly, but silencing dissenters will ultimately fail. As Stewart Brand famously quipped, "Information wants to be free."

Produced by Zach Weissmueller. Graphics by Lex Villena. Riot footage by Ford Fischer.

Music credits: ANBR licensed through Artlist.

Photo credits: ID 174062831© Mirko Vitali Dreamstime.com, Gage Skidmore, Maurizio Pesce, Mark Warner, ID. 68071331© Joe Sohm Dreamstime.com, ID 66213669© Joe Sohm Dreamstime.com, Mandel Ngan Pool via CNP Newscom, POOL REUTERS Newscom, David Seelig Polaris Newscom

NEXT: The Case for Impeaching Trump

HD Download

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

  1. I think I’m just going to hide in my cellar with my barely legal surfer boys and cats until either my death or John Stossel saves us in his mustache-powered mech.

    1. Which one are you again? Are you from the McAfee dimension with fish people?

      1. [ PART TIME JOB FOR USA ] Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple jobS to do and its earnings are much better than regular office XYX job and even a little child EDD can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
        on this page…..READ MORE

        1. Google pays for every Person every hour online working from home job. I have received $23K in this month easily and I earns every weeks $5K to 8$K on the internet.Anm Every Person join this working easily by just just open this website and follow instructions
          COPY This Website OPEN HERE….. Visit Here

          1. [ PART TIME JOB FOR USA ] Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office XKP job and even a little child KERD can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
            on this page…..READ MORE

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

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

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

    2. While I cannot guarantee what you might get offered if you’re successful with them, my research suggests around $30 USD per hour for those based in Asia/India, and around $30-40 USD per hour for those based in Europe and UK / US / Australia / New Zealand. I work through this link, go? to tech tab for work detail…….INFORMATION USA HOME JOB.

    3. Google paid for all online work from home from $ 16,000 to $ 32,000 a month. The younger brother was out of work for three months gnb and a month ago her check was $ 32475, working at home for 4 hours a day, and earning could be even bigger….So I started….. Visit Here

      1. I get paid 95 $ each hour for work at home on my PC. I never thought I’d have the option to do it however JTU my old buddy is gaining 65k$/month to month by carrying out this responsibility and she gave me how.

        Give it a shot on following website……..VISIT HARE

    4. Sorry I accidentally flagged your comment for review. I was trying to see how to make a comment. So I will make it here.

      There is a very interesting supreme court case that deals with the rights of a company that owns a town square to limit speach. Marsh vs Alabama. You should hear quite a bit about this in the near future. If not I will wonder why. The ruling was that a company that owned a company town could not limit speech in that town. Here is a link to the ruling https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/326/501

      1. Also the Pruneyard shopping center case: Open air malls are also public squares.

        1. I am made $84, 8254 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. I am using an online business. Here what I do,. for more information……… USA ONLINE JOBS

    5. I believe social media platforms are no different than a venue that host social club meetings. The owner of the venue has the right to institute policies of his choice. When we sign up for these platforms, we agree to the terms of use which are right upfront. When the terms are violated, the owner has the right to act according to its policies. For the owner of Parler, he can simply host it himself and the users can make donations to help him with the cost. This wouldn’t be a first. Its not hard to create your own server to host a social platform to interact with those like minded individuals as you feel.

    6. While I cannot guarantee what you might get offered if you’re successful with them, my research suggests around $30 USD per hour for those based in Asia/India, and around $30-40 USD per hour for those based in Europe and UK / US / Australia / New Zealand. I work through this link, go? to tech tab for work detail…….INFORMATION USA HOME JOB.

    7. I’ve made $66,000 so far this year w0rking 0nline and I’m a full time student. I’m using an 0nline business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such greatNMK m0ney. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.Here… Visit Here

    8. Google paid for all online work from home from $ 16,000 to $ 32,000 a month. The younger brother was out of work for three months and a month ago her check was $ 32475, working at home for 4 hours a day, and earning could be even bigger….So I started….. Visit Here

  2. How to respond? Abandon any website or service that treats their customers like that.

    1. Just lithograph your own silicon, brah!

      1. You are gonna have to make your own ingots first. But what if everyone refuses to sell you their sand?

        1. We could mine your vagina?

          1. Much funnier than Chippers attempt at humor above.

            1. Get $192 hourly from Google!…Yes this is Authentic since I just got my first payout of $24413 and this was just of a single week… I have also bought my Range Rover Velar right after this payout… It is really cool job I have ever had and you won’t forgive yourself if you do not check it… USA ONLINE JOBS

          2. Roasted. Well done.

            1. Google pays for every Person every hour online working from home job. I have received $23K in this month easily and I earns every weeks $5K to 8$K on the internet. Every Person say join this working easily by just just open this website and follow instructions
              COPY This Website OPEN HERE….. Visit Here

    2. But Patreon, Paypal and Visa have deplatformed people based solely on complaints from DNC front groups.

      The SPLC is just a Democratic Super-PAC masquerading as a human rights organization, but Amazon, Apple and Alphabet all use it’s incredibly libelous list of phony “hate groups” to exclude people.
      Everyone knows that the list was a DNC enemies list and had nothing to do with hate. The SPLC got sued twice over it and lost, but that doesn’t stop these massive monopolies from still treating it as truth. Even though they know otherwise.

      You can’t escape these guys anymore. Abandonment is impossible. They own everything and are so intrinsically tied up with the government, that they are the government.

      1. Freedom of association, what do it mean?

        1. Nothing since the Civil Rights act.

          1. ^^This….

            1. I am making over $9k a month working part time. I stored being attentive to different human beings inform me how much money they are able to make on line so I decided to lok into it.TEg well, it turned into all actual and has completely modified my life.

              That is what I do…. Home Profit System

            2. Yep, that guy should have just shut up and baked the cake. Who cares if the order was made in bad faith. He could have put Jesus stuff all over it and call it a day. Some battles are not worth fighting.

              1. Google pays for every Person every hour online working from home job. I have received $23K in this month easily and I earns every weeks $5K to 8$K on the internet. sea Every Person join this and working easily by open just open this website and follow instructions
                COPY This Website OPEN HERE….. Visit Here

        2. Who do you believe is being forced to associate on a platform that only links accounts together who want to link together? Do words not have a meaning to you?

          1. The owner of the platform and the user of the account promoting violence. The owner does not want to associate with such a user.

            1. Freedom of association is about individuals being free to associate with other individuals without state interference, right?

              You’re saying a customer using a product forms an association with the producer of that product?

              That’s a stretch. Then you overlook the state’s interference component, instead you extrapolate a converse rule: a corporation is free to un-associate the customer of a transaction at any future point because they don’t like the customer’s use of the product the customer received in the “association” (what we formerly called a sale)?

              That’s a tortured twisting to apply freedom of association to this situation. I might need to associate myself with a few breweries to find the reason in it.

              And how very free market of you, too. I’m looking forward to Coca-Cola taking back their product after seeing soda can rockets on YouTube. I’m un-associating that car because I don’t like the new bumper stickers on it. It’s not theft because I’m insulted.

              Look at how much traffic and participation has Trump generated for Twitter over the past half decade. Between his tweets and associated hashtags, he is one of the best investments Twitter could have asked for. Right up until he isn’t useful anymore, at which point they call take-backs.

              For the variety of people de-platformed, Twitter accepted information, provided access to a network, and benefitted from audience generation from that person’s content.

              An exchange was made. A successful market depends on market participants trusting the exchange.

        3. Freedom of association, what do it mean?

          I kinda always suspected you were fuzzy on the concept. Like how it applies to quasi-government entities when it suits you, and not to individuals in other cases.

      2. But Patreon, Paypal and Visa have deplatformed people based solely on complaints from DNC front groups.

        This is the only real travesty going on here. Visa and Paypal don’t actually care who they do business with. They are more than happy to process payments for everyone from the taliban to antifa all things aside. It’s the pressure of the US government leaning on these payment processors and the banking industry as a whole that ultimately chokes freedom. If you can’t bank, you can’t live, and if you can’t live you can’t resist.

        1. “It’s the pressure of the US government leaning on these payment processors”

          ???

          I was assured they are fully private companies.

          1. When you see “private company”, the model you need is “extraordinary rendition”. It works pretty much the same way. When the government is legally prohibited from performing a certain activity, they just outsource it to someone who isn’t.

          2. I’m going to pretend like you are really interested and answer the question.

            This originates in operation choke point.

            This was an Obama administration effort to eliminate businesses that they did not like. They used the regulatory power of the state to go after banks, payment processors, credit companies, etc who did business with disfavored businesses. Gun manufacturers, gun retailers, check cashing organizations, strippers, porno actresses…. All were on the disfavored list.

            This program was an atrocious violation of civil liberties, but they got away with it. The program ended, but the message was sent. Shortly after operation chokepoint, completely independently of anything that the president had been doing, progressive organizations began demanding that payment processors not deal with their disfavored groups.

            this is expanded over the years as they have met with more and more successes.

            The initial huge test run was the Alex Jones deplatforming. I mean, nobody likes that crazy guy, Right? So they did a coordinated hit on five different right-wing personalities, headlined by Alex Jones. At least, I guess that guy’s right-wing.

            In any event, they came after him on every platform, kicking him off of all social media, YouTube, and going after his payment processors, his banks, his hosting companies, even the ISPs who provided connectivity.

            He had to go out and reinvent all of it himself. He had to cobble together networks of businesses that would provide services. But apparently he is popular enough that he weathered the storm. He now has an empire that is impervious to the progressive onslaught.

            Civil rights attorney Robert Barnes says that people should look to Alex Jones for the example of how to survive in this new world. He says that he has paved the way, and people can simply follow his path.

            1. I doubt operation check point is truely gone. Also, once the payment processing companies abandoned the disfavored business, they went cash only. This set them up for criminal prosecution under structuring laws. The left is truely insidious.

              1. The next time they’ll just use the FBI.

            2. “I’m going to pretend like you are really interested and answer the question”

              You could try pretending you undestand sarcasm first.

      3. So, we need to reboot the government. Elections, and the courts have failed us.

        1. Fire everyone, and turn the first 10 names in every major city’s phonebook into a giant hiring committee.

        2. Yes, parodically burn the government to the ground (metaphorically) and start over from scratch. No pre-existing agencies, employees, laws, courts, judicial precedents. All wiped away for a clean start.

      4. Considering that the dems have been pressuring these payment companies to stop working with firearms retailers and other disfavored businesses, we are quickly heading for the point of no return.

        1. I honestly think that point was long passed.

          That’s why it kills me that what I used to think were solidly libertarian groups like Cato and Reason are sitting on their hands and whistling while authoritarianism comes rocketing in.

          …actually it’s even worse than that. Some of the Catomites and Reasonistas are actively running cover for it.

          1. Some of the Catomites and Reasonistas are actively running cover for it.

            Indeed, even within this very website we see it on a daily basis. And just kicking out one Shikha doesn’t mean the rest haven’t descended into hell. Jacob Sullum, Eric Boehm, Peter Suderman, even Matt Welch and KMW herself have fallen victim to TDS and no longer plead for free minds. It’s become a spin zone, where the writers ignore the plain words of a President and simply pump out their poisonous misinterpretations.

            Sad, really.

          2. They’re not sitting on their hands. They’re giving handjobs to the State.

            1. At least they’re now getting invited to the DC media cocktail parties.
              On a probationary basis, to be sure. But I expect they’ll be accepted into “polite society” again pretty soon, they way they’re going.

              And I used to respect (some of) those people.

      5. The SPLC is just a Democratic Super-PAC

        It’s also an offshore money-laundering operation.

        -jcr

      6. https://medium.com/unsafe-space/welcome-to-the-digital-reign-of-terror-b0c7e8d7c3a5

        As a pre-emptive bit of info against the stupid, stupid, stupid “Just build your own multi-billion-dollar media platform” argument.

        You couldn’t do it against their wishes even if you had the expertise and the billions.

    3. Please do, You’ll be missed… douche

    4. Get $192 hourly from Google!…Yes this is Authentic since I just got my first payout of $24413 and this was just of a single week… GHmscI have also bought my Range Rover Velar right after this payout…It is really cool job I have ever had and you won’t forgive yourself if you do not check it……. Home Profit System

    5. I agree. I no longer have a Twitter account,
      Ceterum censeo AWS esse delendam.

    6. Get $192 hourly from Google!…Yes this is Authentic since I just got my first payout of $24413 and this was just of a single week…VCbnm I have also bought my Range Rover Velar right after this payout…It is really cool job I have ever had and you won’t forgive yourself if you do not check it…….Home Profit System

  3. “we do not want to become arbitors of truth”. Since zuccerberg lied under oath can we arrest him for purgury? Lol haha I kid, if that happened where would the dems get their next $500 mill for 2024

  4. Ultimately any digital commons will be run by some techie nerd who’s either a reason libertarian or a leftie democrat. The right way to deal with it is to not play their game.

    1. You can start by refusing to post comments here.

      1. Always trying to censor people WK.

    2. Not much difference between a reason libertarian and a leftie dem these days.

      1. @Fine spirits mundi, would you care to explain that rather outrageous claim?

        1. How long have you been reading Reason?

          I’m in for 30+ years, longtime subscriber, contributor (monetary), big fan. Compared to the relatively brave souls who used to follow, well…”reason” to where their principles led them…yeah, they’re more or less DNC newsletter by now.

          1. 20+ years here and I agree

  5. “Democrats want to leverage Section 230 to force them to weed out misinformation*, which they falsely imagine can be sorted out by panels of accredited experts or fine-tuned algorithms.”

    *Read: Information going against the Democrat’s current narrative. The New York Post story, for instance, was broadly accurate, it was just embarrassing, and possibly damning, to Joe Biden.

    1. This.

      “Accredited Experts™️“ and fine-tuned algorithms” are just code for Democrat Orthodoxy.

      And although this article scratched the surface by asking a rhetorical question, it still seems Reasonable is content to just let the transparent incest going on between the Democrat Party and BigTech, particularly social media, go un-examined.

      The very same tactics used in various middle eastern countries by the Obama administration to combat terrorism were just used on the American people with the Democrat party acting in concert with Silicon Valley. Sleepy Joe is bringing on BigTech executives for major roles in his administration by the boatload, who will then be responsible for regulating their industry (to which they’ll return once their job in DC is done).

      Yet Reason still treats this latest de-platforming as “free market forces.” It’s anything but. It’s clear collusion between Democrats and BigTech, using “private property” as a fig leaf.

      This is what fascism is.

      1. The encyclopedia definition.

        “In general, fascist governments exercised control over private property, but they did not nationalize it.[7]
        Scholars also noted that big business developed an increasingly close partnership with the Italian Fascist and German fascist governments. Business leaders supported the government’s political and military goals. In exchange, the government pursued economic policies that maximized the profits of its business allies.[8]”

        1. But somehow the guy with the Jewish family, who fought with the corporatists and their party, is the Nazi.

          1. Been saying this for weeks now. Most of the cosplay crew doesn’t know what the definition for words actually is. All this political company collusion is soft fascism. It isnt codified but done willingly by corporations in exchange for government access and taxpayer money.

            1. Slowly the definitions will be coerced to say right wing, pro nationalist, and racist. I.e. whatever they want to accuse you of being. Search now and half of them have been changed, just like racism will be changed to include an element of power so you can’t accuse minorities of racism ( I think one of the dictionaries already agreed to this) . Ah yes, Merriam Webster got a request from someone so they agreed to change it. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-52993306

            2. “done willingly by corporations in exchange for government access and taxpayer money” — Well Said…

              Just one of the end-results of a Democratic National Socialist country that has been ignoring the USA’s foundation for years.

            3. The correct and historical term for it is, seriously, “national socialism”. Not kidding.

        2. Fortunately, I still have a copy of my mid-80s dictionary, so I have a better resource on what words actually mean than the modern woke versions.

    2. Terrifying stuff that. I used to think it was difficult to find the truth in media- imagine how near impossible it will be now.

      1. When they control the definitions? Oh…bout as hard as it was for Winston Smith, I’m guessing.

  6. Yeah it`s Possible…Anybody can earn 250$+ daily… You can earn from 6000-12000 a month or even more if you work as a full time job…It’s easy, just follow instructions on this page, read it carefully from start to finish… It’s a flexible job but a good
    eaning opportunity.. Here is More information.

  7. This “solution” won’t solve anything.

    1. You know who else had a solution that didn’t solve anything?

      1. Elizabeth Holmes?

        1. /thread

          Another Orange Man achievement – firing Preet.

          1. A proper dictator would have had him drawn and quartered.

      2. Every leftist ever?

      3. My high school chemistry teacher?

      4. Libertarians?

        1. Libertarian solutions, if properly implemented, would solve most of the problems we have.

      5. Biden/Harris?

  8. Reason will continue to loudly and cheerfully open the door wide for censorship and then quietly and meekly complain when censorship come through the open door.

    1. “Reason will continue to loudly and cheerfully open the door wide for censorship…”

      Are you going to tell us, next, that all of the Demon-Rats at Reason.com support the “D” party’s attempts to get the Lizard Men to activate the mind-control modules that they’ve snuck into us all?

      A citation or example of your wild accusations would help convince us, you know!

      PS, saying that private property owners should be able to decide how to use their property, is VERY weak tea “censorship”, unless you are open to having me showing up, un-invited, at your next party, and allowing me to harangue all of your guests all day long!

      1. Fuck off sarcasmic

      2. Sqrlsy dear, I’m afraid you’re too retarded to argue here.
        I’m sorry, it’s my fault. I shouldn’t have drank so much when I was pregnant with you.

        Why don’t you go post on the Disney forums or at Salon which more suits your intellectual caliber?

      3. This is what happens when the parts of your “argument” are all made up.

        Maybe start with Big Tech’s interests being aligned with the DNC. You might also assume the well-demonstrated intent of the Dems to lock in a California style permanent control of government. Throw in the unfalsifiable assertions of Critical SocJus Theory and yeah, some, maybe not you, might detect the faint suggestion of something very bad happening.

        As opposed to, you know, the “Making shit up, disproving it, declaring victory” method you’ve been using.

  9. “President Donald Trump’s response to last week’s attack on the U.S. Capitol led Twitter to permanently ban him from its platform, and Facebook and YouTube closed his accounts on the grounds that he had used their platforms to incite violence.

    Twitter banned Trump, and other conservative voices, because the Democratic Party has been threatening to do terrible things to the businesses of those social media companies that don’t do a better job of censoring conservative content. The proximate cause of Trump’s banning, and the purge of conservative voices from the internet, generally, was not Trump’s response to anything. It was the Democrats winning both senate races in Georgia.

    Now that the Democratic party and the government are one in the same, the social media companies have nothing to fear from Trump or the Republicans for treating conservatives like sewage and everything to fear from the Biden administration and the Democrats in congress if they don’t flush conservatives down the toilet. We can’t come up with solutions to this problem if we refuse to recognize the cause of the problem, and the cause of the problem is that the Democrats control the government.

    Trump’s tweets were never, are not, and never will be the cause of this or any other real problem.

    1. It’s beyond that.

      Yes, the Democrats is the government, but BigTech is also now the Democrat party. Sleepy Joe can’t hire enough executives from BigTech, nor fast enough.

      And they’re the ones who will regulate and formulate legislation for their own industry.

      I thought the left was against regulatory capture?

      1. Big tech was fearful of what the Trump administration might do to them under the guise of antitrust. They never would have done this to Parler if Trump had been reelected. Again, if big tech is now free to flush conservatives down the toilet, it’s because there are no Republicans left in a position to hurt them–it’s because the Democrats won both the White House and the senate.

        We should also point out that social media companies were down broadly yesterday (Facebook lost 4% of its market cap yesterday) and were down further again today. Social media may skew progressive, but that doesn’t mean they don’t want to sell advertising to conservatives, too. It is unclear how badly these actions will harm their bottom lines over the long run.

        . . . but the reason they didn’t do this in the past is because they didn’t have a 100% Democratic government to answer to.

        1. Oh, and this sure as hell isn’t about Trump’s tweets. The outsized importance of Trump’s tweets in the minds of journalists is an amazing thing to behold.

          1. They were very mean and sometimes downright uNpReSidEntiAL.

            1. HIs tweets were the only thing his fanboys could find fault with. Because it made them look bad.

              1. I don’t think any of us give a shit about what you and your ilk actually think. “Looking bad” to people like you is the a mark of a good and decent human.

                1. Lessons on decency from a Trumper. Any thoughts on interpretations of quantum mechanics while you’re at it?

                  1. I wasn’t giving you a lesson. I was politely telling you that I honestly think you are fundamentally evil, and am not in the least bit concerned about your perceptions.

          2. Agreed, and as Greenwald and Ron Paul point out, who have what I think are clearly the best takes on this, far more egregious things are written on Twitter everyday. Genocide to Israel. Coordinating riots. All openly and without so much as a peep.

            This election, even if the vote counts are kosher, was a coordinated attack between Democrats and BigTech. They colluded together to control conservative speech throughout these last 4 years and now, before the new administration even is even inaugurated, they colluded to eliminate it.

            1. Who’s fault is it that you people were so fucking dumb that your strategy was to attack Congress and miss? The people who write the laws. Jesus Christ. You don’t deserve power because you’re so fucking stupid.

              You already have the Electoral College, Senate, and gerrymandered-as-fuck states providing you with all the bias you need to control the government against the will of the people.

              There’s a lesson in here about barriers to entry for democracy. You have to be *this* not retarded to ride.

              1. Piss off with your gaslighting bullshit, fifty-center.
                Nobody buys the lies you peddle.

                1. You can’t gaslight the already nuts.

                  1. Sure you can. Look at what they’ve done with you, Jeff and Sqrlsy.

              2. You are clearly honing your craft, Tony.

                That was complete bullshit, not just in the message, but in the sentences and most of the words too.

                “barriers to democracy”? Wow. Just…wow.

            2. While I don’t have any evidence to prove such claim, I strongly suspect it’s true. We need to have the institution of the corporate personhood re-examined and stripped of the right to engage in politics. Politics is for people, not for the corporations. The other thing we need is to extend the bill of rights to the digital domain. Every online user should have certain set of rights granted to him. One of those rights should be a free speech. If a platform is protected by the now infamous section 230 of CDA, then it is obligated to post the rules publicly, provide a mechanism for complaint and is liable to be sued if it ignores the rules. For instance, if a platform claiming that it doesn’t allow posts that incite violence houses the account of the Iranian ayatollah, then it’s liable to be sued. In other words, we need a digital bill of rights. Our information is being shamelessly trafficked around by Google, Twitter, FB, LinkedIn and other companies. EU has something called GDPR. It’s not perfect but it’s a step in the right direction.

              1. Maybe good, maybe bad. The GDPR has been misused by people who SHOULD have lots of critical posts about them. It’s been used to suppress true reports about people who then invoke the GDPR.

                More importantly would be some reqirement that the rules clearly posted be applied equitably. Can’t allow a call for doxxing and burning Nick Sandman’s family to death and then ban an account for asking protestors to go home peacefully.

                Not sure how it would work, but I find the hypocrisy and double standards to be the most repulsive, and most frightening, aspect of the Big Tech media platforms behavior. They aren’t just “mistaken” or “greedy” or “incompetent”…they are starting to look like they are operated people who are actually evil.

                I’m not by nature a fearful person, but this is getting really disturbing.

                1. Personalities who start out normal will often become eeeevil when they control ridiculous power.

    2. the social media companies have nothing to fear from Trump or the Republicans for treating conservatives like sewage and everything to fear from the Biden administration and the Democrats in congress if they don’t flush conservatives down the toilet. We can’t come up with solutions to this problem if we refuse to recognize the cause of the problem, and the cause of the problem is that the Democrats control the government.

      But is it serious enough to justify violent revolution? Certainly there are more and more who believe it is. Last week’s garden party in the Capitol could be a foreshadowing of the future if the people on the right get organized. Think of how much more organized antifa and BLM were in Portland. Now imagine the guys with serious weaponry with the same level of organization. I can’t see how we can avoid that given the path we are on.

      1. They’re being extremely provocative, and Biden hasn’t even taken office yet.

        Meanwhile, most of the damage they do will be done during Biden’s first 100 days in office.

        90 days from now, the Democrats may have impeached Trump (again), packed the Supreme Court, added two new states, passed the Green New Deal, and turned every AR-15 owner into a wanted criminal.

        The reaction to that will be at least as big as the militia movement of the 1990s–and conservatives didn’t have social media to help them organize that back then either.

        1. Janet Reno on why the militias didn’t turn out to be much of a threat:

          “I think that speculation as to why it didn’t — it — the nice answer would be that there was no threat. What we must all do, I think, is make sure that we pursue situations, consistent with the law, consistent with due process; that we take reasonable precautions; that we — when we have specific information that can inform the American people, that we advise them; and that America proceed in the way it has always proceeded, that it won’t back down, that it won’t be intimidated, that it will take reasonable precautions, and that we will see our laws honored.”

          —-Janet Reno

          https://www.justice.gov/archive/ag/speeches/2000/1600avail.htm

          Janet Reno resigned in the aftermath of Waco, but Clinton refused to accept her resignation, presumably because accepting her resignation might make it seem like the Clinton administration made a mistake. And just because their incredibly stupid raid ended in the deaths of 75 American citizens (25 of them children), doesn’t mean any mistakes were made, right?

          Anyway, as awful as Reno was, she sounds entirely reasonable in her assessment as to why some 800 militia groups all over the country turned out not to be much of a threat. The first half of the assessment I quoted more or less says that they weren’t a threat because we stopped provoking, them, abided by the law, and respected their due process rights.

          No way today’s Democrats are as smart as Reno about respecting the due process rights of militia members, etc.

          1. I am not sure she was right. What do you think about this:
            https://humanevents.com/2021/01/12/texas-lawmakers-considering-brexit-like-secession-amid-trending-democrat-socialism/

            If other states follow the suit, things might get interesting.

            1. As a New Mexican, it’s almost physically painful to type this, but it might be necessary to move to Texas.

      2. “Last week’s garden party in the Capitol could be a foreshadowing of the future if the people on the right get further demonized, attacked, deplatformed, disenfranchised and insulted.”

        FTFY

  10. Amazon, which owns about a third of the global cloud storage market, evicted Parler from its cloud hosting service, causing the site to go down entirely.

    Parler is still down. I was told by someone who was clearly an expert in server virtualization that getting their 500 or so servers back online was a trivial matter.

    1. Finding someone who is willing to host them and face the wrath of Democrats is another story.

      Whatever happened to 8chan?

      “In the aftermath of the back-to-back mass shootings on August 3 and August 4, 2019, in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, respectively, the site was taken off clearnet on August 5, 2019, after the network infrastructure provider Cloudflare stopped providing their content delivery network (CDN) service. Voxility, a web services company that had been renting servers to Epik, the site’s new domain registrar, as well as Epik’s CDN provider subsidiary BitMitigate, also terminated service.[9][10] . . . . After several attempts to return the clearnet were ultimately stymied by providers denying service to 8chan, the site returned to the clearnet in November 2019 through a Russian hosting provider.[12][13]

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8chan

      Depending on the ill will of Putin is a sad, sorry state of affairs. I guess that’s where all free speech goes to die, 8chan, Snowden, Parler . . .

      8chan also had the advantage of not needing to depend on Apple’s and Google’s app stores for distribution of the app.

      My guess is that Parler will never again have the level of engagement it had a couple of weeks ago, but I hope I’m wrong.

      1. According to my local rag, Parler is eyeing an ‘eastside’ firm for hosting services. For non-locals, the ‘eastside’ basically Bellevue (and its attendant suburbs), across the lake from Seattle.

        Point being, negotiating a new hosting contract, and having your lawyers not make the mistake of ignoring early or sudden termination conditions in the contract, while pulling all your data out of AWS, getting the server and data moved to a new hosting company, spinning up the new server images, DNS, certs and all the other myriad things I’m not even thinking of is no easy task.

        1. Its worse than that. AWS is not just hosting, its an application platform that provides services such as databases, scalable software execution, security and a number of other things. Its not just a case of copying some code to a computer and turning it on if they have made use of this.

          1. This!

            I kept seeing people make this argument. Somehow you just copy paste and it’s going to run elsewhere. AWS is a web services suite with their own set of APIs and management platforms. If all you are spending up there is a web page, then sure you could move it anywhere.

            But they are running a scalable back end operation, which requires custom integration with the hosting platform.

          2. Parler intentionally didn’t use those services.

        2. “According to my local rag, Parler is eyeing an ‘eastside’ firm for hosting services. For non-locals, the ‘eastside’ basically Bellevue (and its attendant suburbs), across the lake from Seattle.”

          I wouldn’t count on that hosting service standing on principle against the backlash–both from cancel culture people and government under the Democrats themselves.

          Parler is now Al Qaeda circa 2002. I’d bet that they’ll eventually need to be outside the reach of the U.S. government.

          1. The black-clad mob will show up at their door with incendiary devices, bullhorns, clubs, etc. to prevent them from platforming ‘terrorists’. If it fails, a similar show at the Zoning Board would be effective as well.

            And we don’t have anyone to take an honest look at the meaning of “terrorism”.

            This is almost too grim to find humor in, but the lack of self-awareness and the brazenness of their hypocrisy does provide a sort of Theater of the Absurd amusement.

      2. 8chan also had the advantage of not needing to depend on Apple’s and Google’s app stores for distribution of the app.

        Build your own gay bakery.

        1. Build your own ovens. Build your own grain mill. Grow your own wheat and sugarcane and chickens and cows (for the eggs and milk). Build your own tractors to cultivate and harvest the grain. Drill for your own oil, and refine it into fuel yourself.

          Fuck, is that whole “mark of the beast” thing actually a set of AWS login credentials?

          I *think* I’m joking…

      3. Finding someone who is willing to host them and face the wrath of Democrats is another story.

        Could be a little of column A and a little of column B or any mixture of the two. Sure, moving images of your Ubuntu Server or spinning up new instances using Kubernetes is a snap. But Kubernetes was created by Google and there are probably loads of places willing to host your traffic, as long as it runs on Windows Server 2000.

    2. Parler is playing a smart game. After this debacle, Parler will be more popular then ever. Gab, also booted by AWS, has found a new cloud provider without any problems. After all, it’s not necessary to even have a cloud. Few Linux servers would serve the traffic without any issues. This is the best commercial for Parler one could ever imagine. If they come back within 3 weeks, they will take tens of millions of users away from Twitter and make it irrelevant. Cloud is basically only a fancy term for using somebody else’s equipment. What the company needs are servers, network connections and storage. Internet service providers are not political. You can get Internet from Verizon, Dish TV, Spectrum (formerly Time Warner Cable), Xfinity or any number of companies, available world wide. Computers can work without cloud. That insisting on cloud is ridiculous, to say the least.

      1. > Internet service providers are not political.

        Yet.

    3. 500 severs? JFC, those guys really don’t know how to do things.

    4. Hrm. Maybe I should come out of sysadmin retirement.

  11. The system is trying to silence conspiracy theories, proving that the conspiracy theories are true. Duh.

    1. They certainly are acting like they’re guilty as fuck.

    2. “The system is trying to silence conspiracy theories, proving that the conspiracy theories are true. Duh.”

      This is not how logic works.

      1. C’mon folks, I really did kill myself!
        ~Signed,
        Jeffery Epstein

  12. The next few years may be ugly, but silencing dissenters will ultimately fail. As Stewart Brand famously quipped, “Information wants to be free.”

    Stewart Brand is way, way out of fashion. When that ‘information’ that ‘becomes free’ is Hillary Clinton’s emails, or the contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop, then Twitter’s going to make GOTTTTDAMNED sure that information will stay bottled the fuck up.

    1. In fairness, it doesn’t seem like things haven’t really changed all since Lieberman phoned up Amazon and other hosting/payment providers and told them to boot Wikileaks.

  13. This is plutocratic apologies for the status quo.

    This version of donor-class ‘libertarianism’ is evil. It is what gives ‘libertarian’ a bad name and therefore undermines ACTUAL free markets. Which do NOT exist in either an ancap world or a world where the rules are made by the existing players.

  14. But what if the network power of a handful of Silicon Valley giants is so great that there’s nowhere for the evicted to turn?

    At least Zach has located the pulse.

    1. So long as the connection infrastructure is monopolized other resources will come about and it’ll be up to the people this time to *learn* from previous mistakes and to keep out of the CA or any Democratic Socialist h*llhole.

      1. *isn’t monopolized

        1. It’s worse than you think:
          https://medium.com/unsafe-space/welcome-to-the-digital-reign-of-terror-b0c7e8d7c3a5

          They are absolutely in control, and with the Dems having removed voter verification, legalized “ballot harvesting” and mandated instant, same-day registration, they won’t even have to mess with the voting machines or counting procedures, which they have NEVER been shown to be reluctant to do.

          The coup occurred, and it wasn’t a bunch of MAGA-hat-wearing yahoos messing up Capitol Hill offices. It’s over. They won, they’re evil and they are coming for you…I dunno, kneel, raise a fist, display the right flag(s), and be sure to hate America…you’ll still get gulag’d or shot or de-personed (see CCP Social Credit Score) but at least you can say you appeased as hard as you could.

          Note: Not addressed at you personally, but American citizens in general. Who, if I didn’t live here, I’d be happy to say deserve what’s coming.

    2. That insisting on great power of the big tech is a pretense for an effort to regulate them. Would you rather deal with Jack Dorsey or Nancy Pelosi and AOC? If the latter get to decide who gets on the Internet and who doesn’t, we’re in trouble. All likelihood is that Parler will eat Twitter alive, in the very recent future. And that will solve the Twitter censorship problem. Google is also not a monopoly. I use DuckDuckGo for more than a year now and am quite happy. Bing also works surprisingly well. There also YT alternatives like Vimeo, Rumble and Bitchute. Free market can take care of these companies, if the government doesn’t rescue them. And it looks like that’s precisely what they want. FB is a fading app. So is Instagram. Give it few more years and those companies will be dramatically reduced in size and influence. That’s why Ted Cruz, Trump and dems are all very dangerous.

      1. Ain’t gonna happen, and for practical intents and purposes, the difference between Dorsey and Zuck and the 20-something zombies who run their companies, and Pelosi/AOC etc, is unimportant.

        They’ve got publishing companies making publishing decisions based on Twitter mobs. The communication alternatives you list are either too small to matter or easily destroyed. They can get Visa/MasterCard to de-economy you.

        You think what has happened in the past shows we’ll get through this. I don’t. It’s over. Take the black pill. Tastes awful and doesn’t help at all…but it’s the truth.

        1. For more on how the “build your own competing billion dollar media platform” argument stacks up against reality, read

          https://medium.com/unsafe-space/welcome-to-the-digital-reign-of-terror-b0c7e8d7c3a5

          While it’s still up.

  15. …and repression of discussion of 2020 election voter fraud claims?

    If there were any libertarians left at Reason, this would be setting off alarm bells for totalitarianism and the end of functioning democracy.

    1. Apparently there wasn’t enough discussion in the evidence-less 60+ court cases brought forward.

      1. Go shill somewhere else fifty-center.

      2. Just curious, how much do you get paid to post here?

        1. Bucket of fish heads per post.

      3. And exactly who gets to decide what is “enough”?

        1. Um, the judges? That is their job, after all. If the parties don’t like the ruling of the first judge, they can appeal to the judges at the next level. Then the next level after that until (and if) it reaches the SCOTUS. Eventually, they might run out of judges to appeal to and may just have to accept that they aren’t convincing anyone because they don’t have the evidence to back up their claims.

          Or, they could do like Trump’s lawyers have done multiple times out of the many lawsuits: withdraw the case before they would have to present their evidence in an open courtroom where it could be cross-examined instead of in press releases, interviews with friendly journalists, and via social media.

          What really seems the most clear to me is that Trump fans decided that the evidence was “enough” as soon as Trump told them it was.

  16. “Silencing dissenters”?

    Overreact much? You’ve never had ANY right to broadcast a message to hundreds, let alone billions of people at once. Even when it was all just newspapers, they were free to not publish any poetry or garbage you wanted.

    Acting as if this is some great threat to free speech is absurd. You wanna be heard? Go to your local street corner or public square. Twitter and every other private company owes you jack shit and are free to do what they wish with their PRIVATE platforms, something libertarians should hold dear.

    Otherwise, I think all the “conservatives” (as people want to apparently be lumped in with all the human excrement on parler) need to brush up on their admin skills and go set up decentralized instances so these big bad silicon valley CEOs can’t just deplatform them and hurt their feelings.

    1. Even though there’s been a thousand arguments conclusively proving him wrong, Jeff is still copypasting the same Media Matters talking points in every thread.

      Does anyone here still doubt he’s fifty-center?

      1. Jeff is a leftist and pedophilia enthusiast (by his own admission in Reason’s comments).

    2. What happens when every link in the supply chain (banks, payment processors, DNS providers, data centers, software tool chains) refuses to do business with Parler or Gab or some other yet to be created digital platform? Then what? The BigTech oligarchs have already bullied smaller players into compliance with left wing orthodoxy.

      1. Shh…shhh… that fucks up the narrative. Just make it a one way street. Ignore the fact that someone DID IN FACT ‘Build Their Own Twitter’.

      2. “What happens when every link in the supply chain (banks, payment processors, DNS providers, data centers, software tool chains) refuses to do business with Parler or Gab or some other yet to be created digital platform?”

        Hold on a minute, I think you are on to something here. If one or a few businesses see it as their right to refuse service, we can still force them to serve people that they don’t want to associate with through some hypothetical about them being denied service everywhere they might go. Sounds great! Now bake the damn cake for Adam and Steve’s Big Gay Wedding!

        Of course, that isn’t a good analogy, but it was satisfying to make it.

        The reasons that any religious exceptions to anti-discrimination law are a different issue are many. One, anti-discrimination laws arose out of a true systematic denial of the rights of Black Americans to participate equally in society in a large chunk of the country. Then, since that discrimination may have been worst in the Jim Crow South, but wasn’t limited to it, and because that same kind of discrimination affected many minority groups and women, anti-discrimination laws recognize many different groups in addition to Blacks and circumstances besides businesses that are open to the public.

        Most importantly, though, is that political views are not protected through anti-discrimination law. Anti-discrimination laws are aimed to protect people for being discriminated against because of more fundamental aspects of who they are, such as race, ethnicity/national origin, sex/gender, etc. (Religion is not an immutable characteristic, but many, if not most, people follow the religion they were brought up in. And religion is generally given a favored place in this country, sometimes both for good and bad reasons.)

        But no one has a right to be protected from being discriminated against by private individuals or businesses that don’t like their political views. I’ve never heard of anyone calling for that to be added to anti-discrimination law.

        1. Bet that sounds really smart in your head, doesn’t it?

    3. Let this comment represent everything that’s wrong with the left, and how they’ve devolved into parasitic class of totalitarians.

      Build your own gay bakery.

    4. Private companies may not owe you anything. That doesn’t mean their actions can’t be bad for free speech. Free speech is more than a legal principle. It needs to be a broadly held social value for it to be worth a shit.

      1. It needs to be a broadly held social value for it *all* to be worth a shit.

        A corporation that not only doesn’t allow dissent externally but also isn’t free to dissent internally, is indistinguishable from any other fiefdom/vassal, or even, in the case of unpaid interns, slavery plantations. The idea of shareholders is that everybody’s money is equally good and corporations have boards to get a broad mix of ideas with regard to leadership/governance. The idea that some people’s money shouldn’t be allowed and that some voices shouldn’t be heard by or on the board is anti-thetic to the corporation itself.

      2. “Private companies may not owe you anything. That doesn’t mean their actions can’t be bad for free speech. Free speech is more than a legal principle. It needs to be a broadly held social value for it to be worth a shit.”

        And everyone need to understand and respect that Free Speech isn’t the right to say whatever the fuck you want without social consequences.

        Private companies, like all private individuals, must be free to associate with only those they choose to associate with. If you don’t like what facebook, Twitter, et al. are doing, then you are free to criticize them and not associate with them yourself. If free speech as an ideal, not just a restriction on government, is something you value, then use your constitutional right to Free Speech to say so.

        Be prepared to argue the details, though. Organizing an insurrection should not fit anyone’s idea of free speech. Neither is saying something provably false. I would absolutely stand against anyone suggesting that Twitter should or would have to leave up a tweet saying provably false things denying the reality of the Holocaust. I will stand with Twitter if it decides to ‘fact check’ or just take down tweets that claim that COVID-19 was being spread by 5G towers rather than a virus.

        It is a judgement call for these companies to decide how far to go to moderate their platforms. Trying to institute content-neutral rules and having transparency in their moderating decisions would give their users more trust in their fairness, but as private companies, it is entirely their right and responsibility to make those decisions.

        If the political right really wants sympathy in their fight against Big Tech, then they need to do a whole fucking lot more to separate themselves from the fringe. In a lot of ways, that is their problem. They’ve wanted the loyalty and energy that the fringe brought, so they didn’t put up much in the way of barriers between the mainstream of the GOP and the dangerous and unhinged parts of their base. This predates Trump, but he gave it a nitro-boost and brought those movements into the light.

        I just read about one of the new House Republicans saying that he would vote to impeach Trump and recounting conversations with GOP colleagues where they were afraid to vote against Trump because some nutjob among his followers might come after them and their families. Can you believe that? Is this what conservatives and libertarians thought they have been creating?

        None of this occurred in a vacuum. It didn’t just happen last week. It has been building for thirty years as the conservative movement took it as a war for the soul of America and used increasingly divisive rhetoric to frame things that way. The Left simply could not be allowed power, so Any Means Necessary are on the table.

        This narrative is dangerous because it is fundamentally anti-democratic. Not just in a “we aren’t a pure democracy, we’re a republic” kind of away, either. It is against the whole idea that it is through elections that we decide how to govern ourselves. If it is war, then losing is not an option. Losing an election becomes a call to arms instead of a reason for self-reflection and analysis on how to communicate to the electorate more effectively.

        Of course, I tend to write long comments that I bet few people read to the end. Which is part of the problem. The internet is too much about instant gratification to really ever be a forum for deep and rational discussion of politics. Everyone here would probably be better off if we just stopped looking at the comments in the articles here and elsewhere entirely. We should go back to the only outlet for discussing published articles being letters to the editor, letters (or emails) sent to the authors that may or may not read them, or writing responses on our own blogs if we feel the need to put our own views into the ether. The internet has allowed anyone and everyone easy access to speaking their minds to huge numbers of people that they’ll never meet. That may yet show itself to have been a bad thing for civilization, all things considered.

        1. It has been building for thirty years as the conservative movement took it as a war for the soul of America and used increasingly divisive rhetoric to frame things that way. The Left simply could not be allowed power, so Any Means Necessary are on the table.

          LOL, are you fucking kidding with this bullshit? The Left literally controls the education industry, mass media, entertainment, the Tech Trust, and now corporate America. They’ve built up this control over the same fucking time frame you posted. Your ally, Sarah Jeong, wrote the book on how to justify censorship of wrongthink.

          If the Republicans were as ruthless about gaining power as you say, you wouldn’t even have a social media account now. Guess who is getting kicked off of these platforms today? It isn’t you and your allies.

          1. “LOL, are you fucking kidding with this bullshit? The Left literally controls the education industry, mass media, entertainment, the Tech Trust, and now corporate America. They’ve built up this control over the same fucking time frame you posted. Your ally, Sarah Jeong, wrote the book on how to justify censorship of wrongthink.”

            Well, this is exactly the kind of conspiracy-laden thinking and culture of victim-hood that I was talking about. The right built an alternative media universe premised on the idea that they don’t get a fair shake in the ‘mainstream’ one. Now, this universe is an echo chamber where leftist dominance of information is an article of faith, and only media and political figures on the right can be trusted to speak the truth. Oh, and that they do speak the truth, with any ‘fact checks’ to the contrary just being part of their ‘fake news’ conspiracy.

            And I don’t know who Sarah Jeong is, nor do I care to look her up.

            1. You fucking mendacious asshole!!

              You went and posited and entirely made-up conspiracy about what “The Right” was doing for thirty years, and then accuse someone else of “conspiratorial thinking” (which is either code words or a dog whistle…but that only goes one direction in your mind, right?)??

              WTF? Do you ever, EVER, subject your own arguments to any kind of critical analysis?? I’m guessing it’s all obvious to you and hey, “It all fits together!” so, no.

        2. Of course, I tend to write long comments that I bet few people read to the end. Which is part of the problem. The internet is too much about instant gratification to really ever be a forum for deep and rational discussion of politics. Everyone here would probably be better off if we just stopped looking at the comments in the articles here and elsewhere entirely. We should go back to the only outlet for discussing published articles being letters to the editor, letters (or emails) sent to the authors that may or may not read them, or writing responses on our own blogs if we feel the need to put our own views into the ether. The internet has allowed anyone and everyone easy access to speaking their minds to huge numbers of people that they’ll never meet. That may yet show itself to have been a bad thing for civilization, all things considered.

          This is the most brutally authoritarian argument for censorship I’ve ever seen. “People who don’t agree with me and don’t meet certain editorial standards should have their voices silenced.”

          Fuck off, terrorist.

          1. Did I say anything about censorship? I’m talking about each person recognizing that our addiction to instant gratification in social media is poisoning the way we talk and think about politics. My wistful reminiscence about the days before comments sections like this that are mostly pointless trash talk is for a world we can never go back to. If thinking that people might be better off unplugging for a while sounded like a call to actually force people to be filtered, that is my bad.

            Then again, maybe you decided that I was being “brutally authoritarian” because you wanted to interpret my words that way. After all, I clearly identified myself as not-conservative/libertarian, so I must be a closet totalitarian, right?

            1. Yes, when you wrote:

              We should go back to the only outlet for discussing published articles being letters to the editor…

              Along with arguing that giving everyone a voice may be a bad thing, then you are calling for censorship.

    5. You’re Right; The solution isn’t in taking over Tech… The solution is LIMITING GOVERNMENT. Don’t stick your finger in the fan – pull the plug!

      1. Yeah, that might’ve sounded good a few years ago. Real noble. Real principled. But since we’ve got a permanent, California-style Democrat government, allied with unassailable monopolists in Silicon Valley, ain’t gonna happen.

        But you can be happy feeling superior and dismissing “conspiracy theories”, so it’s all good. Fuck you.

        1. I think you are responding to the wrong person.

          And what would have been different if a few libertarians got on board?

  17. To the techno-fascists you are a product to be monetized. The best thing to do is to cancel them before they cancel you.

    1. This is certainly the conclusion I’m coming to.

      You are not the customer, but a product to be sold to advertisers, who are their actual customers.

      1. These services are all “free.” You get what you pay for.

        1. ^THIS… And hopefully learn from the consequences and try better next time.

        2. “These services are all “free.” You get what you pay for.”

          The movement to this kind of business model on the internet is old and predates Google, facebook, and them. I remember World War 3.0 (a book I never finished reading about the Browser Wars and the anti-trust investigation into Microsoft in the 90’s). At a time when Apple was floundering quite a bit, Microsoft was dominant in the PC market. It was leveraging its position as an OS publisher to get more and more features and applications associated with it, rather than as stand-alone programs that users would buy separately from different companies. How many people use something other than Microsoft Office for those apps? Whatever happened to Netscape? AOL? Yahoo for searches? Pretty much the main competitors to Microsoft are now also Tech Giants, but they don’t sell software. Google’s suite of apps to compete with Office is free. Why? What do they get out of it?

          It was all a business model designed around having as many users as possible, not about designing and selling products that would make money on their own merits. As Muzzled Woodchipper says, this makes us a commodity, not customers.

  18. This article is racist bullshit. Like blacks online in general who speak out against white supremacism, I’m heavily deplatformed on a regular basis. I’m heavily stalked and reported by white supremacists/anti-black racists. Nothing going on against you Confederates remotely approaches what blacks who speak up routinely experience. I’m currently banned again on Facebook. That happened immediately after white supremacists overthrew Congress and stopped the counting of Electoral votes. Many other blacks Facebook regards as “thought leaders” were banned. A bunch of black Facebook groups were outright deleted, along with their archives of black history. I face this kind of treatment across Big Tech, across the Internet, and most of all just physically in real life. The NYPD stalked me day before yesterday while I was running at 4 AM, for about a mile. This happens a LOT. The writer of this article is ignorant as hell, a spoiled racist little child with NO idea of what America is really like.

    1. Filed under things that never happened.

      Come back when Twitter has banned everyone that is black.

      1. I’m not so sure the 64 Civil Rights act was all that honorable. In many aspects it was rather along the same lines to thwart property rights in an effort to curb inequality. The curse of it being giving more POWER to control instead of letting nature of VALUE work as nature intended.

        And the POWER breeds *entitlement* after *entitlement* after *entitlement*. The POWER to STEAL = WEALTH instead of VALUE = WEALTH.

      2. I’m currently banned again on Facebook.

        Funny, I’m counting six posts on your Facebook page in the last 24 hours, and that’s just the ones you made public.

        If they’re trying to shut you up, they’re doing a piss-poor job.

    2. I don’t get the joke?

    3. I’m betting you really DO find a lot of negativity in “White America”, and it has nothing to do with you being a hateful racist asshole yourself. Nothing at all. And those white supremacists really DO run everything, and that’s why we’ll never have a black president.

      But have you checked? I bet they’re watching you right now! They do keep a close eye on this site. Posting here might have been a fatal mistake. You’ll want to “take measures”, amirite? Test it out…go for a walk, eventually, there they will be: either police cars or black SUVs. Sometimes a Ford Taurus (but all souped up, like with weapons and shit) And then the helicopters, with the long-range telescopes!! How you gonna avoid THEM?

    4. Oh, yeah, it’s so hard to find people speaking out against white supremacism online.

  19. We need an open digital commons, where individuals maintain ownership of their own identities and where speech is highly resistant to political pressure.

    Longing for the good old days, I see.

    1. ^THIS EXACTLY; The monster under the rug in all of this is an ever growing National Socialist Government.

    1. If they can shut down a US ore sod met at will, what hope do the rest of us have?

      Destroy them before they do the same to us.

      1. ‘Shut down a us president’

        1. Voice recognition is the shit ain’t it?

        2. It’s ok though, they use the same algorithms to detect hate speech.

    2. I’m pretty shocked they said anything. I was pretty sure they were on the civil rights schmivil rights train. Taking bets on how long it takes them to back down.

      1. Nah ACLU likes to make a noise about a non-left issue every now and again just so they can say they are impartial. They even offered to help Rush a few years ago when the state seized his medical records illegally.

        1. It’s called the “Donations Tracking Team Report”.

          They’ve surely reassured the staff who runs things what they’re doing. At any rate, I’m going to double my usual donation to them. I’m not gonna say how much I give, except for the clue that “the math is REAL easy”.

  20. How to respond: Withdraw all your support. Convince your friends to do the same.

    Turn Facebook into MySpace.

    Nuke Twitter from orbit.

    1. We tried and they’re removing the alternatives from the app stores.

      1. You don’t need to have an alternative to FB to delete your FB account.

        I 1000000% agree that they are wrong to be removing competitors, but the more people who leave the main sites, the bigger the potential payday of alternate sites.

        1. ^EXACTLY; And MySpace (not as easy UI wise but definitely usable) already has it’s own server (I check the IP host). And isn’t based out of CA.

      2. Just the ones that have no mechanism for policing organized terrorism.

        Why can’t you express your opinions on Twitter and have to move to gross shadowy pedophile hangouts? Is it because you’re in a fucking cult? Could that be it?

        1. *A screed in which Tony dissimulates his intellectual honesty*
          lol.

        2. If Twitter has the mechanism for policing organized terrorism, why didn’t they do it all summer long? Where are all the bans for people who incited violence?

          Tony doesn’t care about free speech and will happily parrot the acceptable line until he dies. He’s a good subject that way.

          1. Because they were also tolerating the terrorist insurrection coming from the president.

            1. Is this based on some “English-to-Tony” translation of his words, or are you straining your brain to work out the “dog whistles” and “code words” mental gymnastics they used for the Twitter ban?

              Pro Tip: START with the absolute knowledge that the subject is evil and you are 100% right. (confirm this with the proper blue-check “authorities” on Twitter if necessary) From there, it still takes suppression of logic and any moral scruples you might have about lying, but it CAN be done!!

        3. The ‘cult’ trying to put the U.S. Constitution back in it’s place as the Supreme Law.

    2. Exactly. The social media site employees might be celebrating about kicking out the deplorable half of their users, but advertisers certainly aren’t.

    3. Aren’t most twitter accounts bot? Kicking out a good portion of your real users seem like a bad business model. Soon, twitter will be like the reason comment sections where one guy talks to himself via sickpuppets. The question is, will advertisers believe there are still eyes to view their ads?

      1. “sickpuppets” is a neologism disguised as a typo. Good work.

  21. I’m glad I deleted all my social media accounts before they were made mandatory. They’re all cesspools and dumpster fires. I mean, unless Nick Gillespie is tweeting out hair tips for men over 50, is there any worthwhile content on any of them? I wonder what would happen if the sheeple woke up and realized the FB et. al. only have power because we voluntarily give it to them?

    1. Goth Fonzie’s hair might be woven from carbon fiber.
      Who wouldn’t be lured by the prospect of its secrets.

      1. I want to know how to grow one of them jackets out of my own skin. Amazing!

    2. I agree. For me, being off of social media is also an excellent way to see who is actually a friend and who isn’t.

  22. forgive me a mere plebe not being able to follow the threads of snark, but let me see if i got you all correct.

    anyone, anywhere, at anytime, should be able to plot and scheme to kill another human being on the various Soc med platforms and sites?

    have i got it right?

    1. This is exactly what is being said. Exactly.

      Oh, the Ayatolla still has a twitter account. So fuck this breathless bullshit on censorship.

    2. Yes, that is allowed on Twitter all the time when the author is a leftist, however advocating for a closed border or lower taxes is the real hate speech that must be exiled.

    3. Liberals for lock down like actions at every aspect of life. Covid has taught you well. Someone may do something bad so don’t let anyone do anything.

    4. anyone, anywhere, at anytime, should be able to plot and scheme to kill another human being on the various Soc med platforms and sites?

      Heaven’s no! And to prevent that we need to install spyware surveillance programs monitoring apps on everyone’s computers, and if they follow ideas that are known to be subversive (conservatism, libertarianism, Christianity, Hinduism, classic liberalism, Republican party membership, etc), they need to be banned from social media, holding bank accounts, and breathing air.

      Happy?

    5. anyone, anywhere, at anytime, should be able to plot and scheme to kill another human being on the various Soc med platforms and sites?

      have i got it right?

      Reminds me of the panic about child abductors making contact with kids on the internet: Would you prefer the tulpas plan your death anywhere at any time or at your front door while you’re asleep? Because the latter doesn’t require the internet whatsoever and the former requires them to be relatively out-of-touch and far away before the internet is really useful.

    6. mmm…maybe come back when you’ve elevated your consciousness to the level of “mere plebe”.

      Your feigning of stupidity was too convincing.

    7. To pretend to take your question seriously:

      It was done to Nick Sandman. It’s been done to lots of people who were assigned the “alt-right” label. Or even “alt-right adjacent”. Or who “liked” a tweet from someone who was labelled “alt-right adjacent signal booster”. Or if they’re Trump. Or someone famous who declined to put their pronouns in their profile. All capital offenses.

      So yeah, guess it’s okay. Until they confuse things with the claim that “advising people to peacefully go home” is “incitement”.

      Does that answer your faux question?

  23. I am now of the mind that free speech is on a definite downward spiral. There are very few principled defenders left, and unfortunately even with Reason itself wavering in the face of what I guess is a world-rocking attack on democracy itself (I disagree wholeheartedly with that seemingly universal characterization of the latest DC riot), all it takes is the slightest of public discomfort for all of us to abandon one of (if not the) most important concepts this country once claimed to cherish. End of run-on sentence rant.

    1. It’s been on the downward slide for a while, it just went into third gear, and is already switching into fourth with no defense of it from any dead-tree media outlet which constantly and smugly referred to themselves as “The Gatekeepers of the First Amendment” up through… the 1990s.

      However, I may have been misunderstanding them. They may BE the gatekeepers of the first amendment… if you know what I mean.

    2. They put it in the first amendment so it would be easier to find it later to line it out.

    3. Coming from fist, this is a Tolstoy like tome.

      come on reason! Get your act together. You’re supposed to be a libertarian magazine. This one is easy. It is right there in libertarian 101.

      1. Fist of Etiquette is the conscience that Reason should have. Not Peter Suderman, KMW, or Matt Welch.

    4. The internet means nobody lacks for free speech except where they suppress the internet.

      You’re whining about something that’s not real. The first amendment was written when the pamphlet was mass communications technology.

      Your problem is you want all the freedom and none of the responsibility. Why do you think we protect speech? Because speech is harmless?

      1. You’re whining about something that’s not real. The first amendment was written when the pamphlet was mass communications technology.

        “Current Year Everybody!
        Of course we should do X, its (year)! Its the (number) century! we aren’t living in the (time period)

        Chronological snobbery is a form of appeal to novelty, in which one argues that the only relevant knowledge and practices are those established in the last decades.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_novelty

      2. And speech is harmless you fascist fuck.

        1. Then why bother protecting it?

          We don’t protect a right to free kittens. Speech is protected because it contains ideas that change societies.

          Learn something for God’s sake.

          1. Then why bother protecting it?

            Because fascist fucks like you want to stop people from saying things that they don’t like, and holding beliefs that get in the way of your grift.

            1. You think the constitution was written by stoner nerds in their basement who just want to be left alone, mom!

    5. “all it takes is the slightest of public discomfort for all of us to abandon one of (if not the) most important concepts this country once claimed to cherish.” — Very Well Said and should be taken to heart by both sides (Big Tech and Those Mad at Big Tech).

  24. This whole thing is pretty much exactly what the open internet/free software/linux types have foreseen and been arguing about since the beginning. For what it’s worth, there are decentralized, uncensorable networks out there, such as Mastodon and it’s more popular variant, Gab. Tim Berners Lee is also working on something similar called Inrupt. Hopefully, this current moment gives some impetus to those.

    1. The BIG lesson; Keep your VALUE away from the Power-Mad left.

  25. Hey Zack, what’s your guy Biden have to say about this?

    1. “When you got nothing, button up your overcoat, because you been living a hard life, and we gotta get outa this place.”

      1. That was good, but it’s probably one of the few instances where brevity may have been a disservice.

        Jerryskids, I believe is a good source for run on bidenisms. Or maybe Rufus. They’re both good.

    1. I hope to God that the big boys don’t thwart him.

    2. Shit. Maybe it really *is* time to come out of hacker retirement. But I haven’t finished leveling up my multiclass trucker skills yet! Darn it!

  26. In the Brave New World, this will not be sufficient:
    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.

  27. “I don’t even know what being neutral would mean,” said Keller. “Would it mean allowing every single thing to be uploaded and just showing it in chronological order?

    Why not? Telecom companies somehow exist, even though they allow any damn thing to be said on their networks.

    1. In more or less chronological order no less!

    2. “Would it mean allowing every single word to be communicated and just showing up on the other end of the line?” — lol… I can’t believe these Power-Mad people cannot even hear what they’re saying.

      1. They must have internal brain-censorship of their own words.

      2. The complete absence of self-awareness is continually mind-blowing. I have even proposed it as the 4th Law of SJWs.

  28. Democrats want to leverage Section 230 to force them to weed out misinformation, which they falsely imagine can be sorted out by panels of accredited experts or fine-tuned algorithms. Republicans have threatened to repeal Section 230 unless platforms commit to “viewpoint neutrality,” a standard that Daphne Keller of Stanford’s Cyber Policy Center told Reason in June 2019, is impossible to uphold.

    “I don’t even know what being neutral would mean,” said Keller. “Would it mean allowing every single thing to be uploaded and just showing it in chronological order? Can you be neutral if you have search features? Can you be neutral if you allow people to mute things? I think a truly neutral—meaning showing everything that is legal—social media platform would be full of content that most users don’t want to see.”

    It’s easy to weed out disinformation – disinformation is anything the Democrats object to.

    And claiming not to know what neutrality means is just retarded – it doesn’t mean everybody has to have everything shoved in their face, it just means it’s available if you want it.

    1. I agree. That segment was just jarring.it’s like they were so desperate to prove that Ted Cruz is the bad guy that they didn’t mind putting something that metaphysically stupid right in the middle of their argument.

      1. I did a double-take at that point too.

        You mean…there’s things on You Tube (THIS VERY MINUTE, NO LESS!) that I might not like?? I could panic. I could protest. Or I could continue not looking at them, as I have always done.

        This is like the amazing outrage that someone posted a “hurtful” post (to trannies, minorities, whatever)…10 years ago and it required considerable digging to bring it to current life to “hurt” people again! WHOSE actions really resulted in the feigned…errr…I mean very real pain the post has now caused??

  29. Yeah!!!!! Finally, reason is taking on…..

    Oh. Wait? What are you… No!

    Oh, for crying out loud!

    You just can’t write an entire article without some kind of lame false equivalence, can you? let’s do this like that “this is your brain on drugs” commercial.

    Last time! demanding that everyone who disagrees with you be silenced and demanding that no one be silenced are not the same thing. They are not in the same bucket. They are not equivalent. Stop pretending they are just so that you can appease the left. The left is 100% wrong on this. Not 90% wrong, not almost as wrong as the right is, not similarly wrong to those crazy right wingers, they are 100% wrong. Just stop it with the nonsense.

    And then bringing in an expert to explain to me that there is no such thing as neutrality, therefore we can’t even discuss it? Good lord that is stupid. You spent the entire end of the conversation talking about how to create exactly that world, with no form of centralized control. Why the hell is she even there? The only politician you spent any time arguing against is Ted Cruz. He may not be the be all end all, but he’s not the one destroying free speech. Jumping up and down and complaining about it and shouting that you’re going to do something if they don’t fix it is not the same thing as actually successfully preventing people you disagree with from expressing their opinions.

    That is where we are. The other side is successfully preventing vast numbers of people from expressing their political opinions. They are successfully censoring the news. You document it yourself, in the midst of a presidential election all of the press and all of the tech companies colluded together to prevent derogatory information about Joe Biden from coming out.

    I cannot believe that we don’t have a single libertarian writer at reason magazine who can give a full-throated defense of free speech. Without any orange man bad hand waving, without any sympathetic yes I know all those right-wing people are crazy talk, without any hand ringing about how awful it would be if Ted Cruz forced companies to carry political speech they disagree with. How about we just deal with one issue at a time?

    In this case, the one issue is that the left is successfully moving to block speech they disagree with. That is the issue. That is the only issue. Anyone who tries to tell you that the real issue is Republicans responding to this is an idiot. And an a******.

    People are successfully destroying your rights, right now. stop worrying about this hypothetical thing that isn’t happening and isn’t going to happen and start defending the liberty you have, or you won’t have it much longer. The window is closing.

    1. “The other side is successfully preventing vast numbers of people from expressing their political opinions.”

      There is no constitutional right to a Twitter account you moron.

      Every human in this country has more freedom to express their fucking retarded political opinions than any founding father did.

      You shut down terrorist networks. You can’t have a first amendment without a constitution, and you don’t have a constitution, or any laws, without elections.

      This is at best a poli sci 101 jerkoff session. The only reason speech is in the news is because the terrorist backers are trying to change the subject to something they can whine about.

      1. Yeah we’ve already been down this road.

        Being dumb and having a list of talking points to hit makes for really stupid posts.

        And you can’t even destroy the straw man you keep setting up. I mean, what kind of moron sets up a straw man and then can’t even beat it up?

        You really are bad at this.

        1. Watch the videos coming out of what happened in the US Capitol. You owe it to yourself.

          Tell me what you would advocate if we discovered those people were black and organized this shit on black Parler.

          1. I did, you lying fifty-centing fuck.

            I saw the Hill cops opening doors and removing barricades to let people into the capitol building.
            I saw people steaming in, in an orderly manner taking photos and keeping inside the velvet ropes.
            I saw people taking selfies.
            I saw idiots with plastic masks on their heads huddling in benches while unarmed peasant folk wandered by.
            I saw a broken window.
            I saw a guy walk off with a podium and then put it back (it never left the building contrary to what you inferred earlier you lying fuck).
            I saw somebody put his feet up at Pelosi’s desk.
            I saw some congress critters aiming handguns at people walking by like they were in Nam.
            I saw a guy with zipties hanging Gadsden flags (later Tony and his ilk would claim these were for tying up senators).

            I didn’t see anyone light the building on fire, unlike all the other DC riots last year.
            I didn’t see anyone with a gun or a knife or a baseball bat, unlike all the other DC riots last year.
            I didn’t see anyone rub poop on the walls, or tear down pictures and statues, unlike all the other DC riots last year.

            It’s time for you to stop your lies you slimey fifty-center.
            What you are doing is called fomenting.
            You’re such an evil piece of shit.

            Now fuck off and tell your boss that you’re too retarded to keep working the Reason comments, and that they should get someone smarter.

            1. You know what’s hilarious to me?

              I made a lot of money over the last four years. I didn’t even have to set foot in an office over the last one. And I didn’t buy into a pack of lies that were bound to come crashing down around me.

              So between the two of us, you’re the only one Trump actually victimized.

              1. I’m Canadian, so lol.

                But anyway, I’m sure you haven’t seen the inside of a job site in years, but I doubt that fifty-centing pays as much as you are pretending.

          2. Fucking black people DID cause damage on the Capitol grounds!

            Nobody got shot. Nobody even got arrested. The point you are making is…white people (if not clearly self-designated as “allies”) get treated WORSE than non-white people?

            Fuck the fuck off. I saw the “scary terrorist coup” as you might word-salad it. It was nothing. Certainly a lot less threatening or damaging than the Antifa riots in Portland or CHAZ/CHOP in Seattle, or the many BLM “mostly peaceful, mostly non-looting, mostly non-burning” protest/riots did.

            Or do you actually believe there’s a control room in the Capitol in which they keep the “Levers of Power” and those selfie-taking Magas would be in control of our country if they got to them? Coz that’s about the only scary scenario I associated with that relatively mild “riot” that has you pissing your diapers.

            And just an FYI, there isn’t anything in or about the Capitol building that puts its occupiers in control of the country. “Coup”. lol.

          3. Punish those who commit crimes. The end. Same I’ve called for in both the case of the Capitol unpleasantness and the BLM associate unpleasantness. Why do you think that it’s about race?

        2. I think he’s just having a bad day. He’s done better.

      2. What’s fun about Tony is the only time he’s right is when he thinks he’s attacking the Right.

    2. Free Minds and Free Markets.

  30. I found the New York Times interview clip infuriating as well.

    “If the attack on the Capital was planned on your platform, then”

    Well it wasn’t.

    See how easy that was? I have seen the parlor spokeswoman on a couple of shows. She is really not very good. Not very quick on her feet, and not very ready for the storm that they threw at her.

    The New York Times reporter was 11 kinds of full of crap. And the person from parlor should have known that going into the interview. What if they were inspired by the New York Times reporting? New York Times reporters are actually proud of all of the riots this summer. The author of the 1619 project actually calls them the 1619 riots. you know, because the intended results of the 1619 project was to foam at racial unrest and engendered exactly that sort of violence.

    It was really annoying to listen to that interview knowing that the person for parlor had none of the background knowledge needed to answer what was an entirely political attack.

    1. Lefty owned Tech just attacked the President good and hard. Lefty politicians have been attacking the President forever. The left trying to enact a Democratic National Socialist country has been an attack on the treasonous scale.

      But all that’s ‘Conspiracy Theory’; last weeks protest was the only REAL thing that ever happened.

  31. Wha whatabout the decades-long effort by Republicans and the right to discredit the very idea of journalism itself and turn the US into a bifurcated factual universe?

    Fuck Glenn Greenwald’s whining. Libertarians have no leg to stand on. Either corporations are free, and we’re supposed to ignore their monopoly inclinations, or not, and you don’t get to change your mind the moment your favorite orange ox gets gored.

    Maybe he shouldn’t have encouraged sedition against the very constitution you’re talking about. Maybe that would have helped maintain a robust marketplace of ideas.

    All Trumpists have done is prove why organized rightwing bullshit has to be kept in the shadows where it belongs. Just like we do with ISIS propaganda, to not a peep from you guys.

    1. Journalista have largely discredited themselves by becoming a facts first organization to a feelings first, check in on the DNC spin, rationalize, and utilize oanonymkus resources entity.

      1. This is the kind of shit they have done to your brain.

        Free speech is meant to serve a purpose. The Enlightenment was about progress, not turning everyone into an island of retard.

        1. Stop concern trolling. You’ve already made it very clear here that you are antagonistic to free speech.

          1. Hm, between the two of us I’m not the one making excuses for anyone who tried to set the US Constitution on fire.

            1. You actually just posted here, in this very fucking thread, that you think that the First Amendment is outdated trash.

              And you’re talking about other’s setting the Constitution on fire?

              You’re not even keeping track of your bullshit anymore.

              1. I love the first amendment far, far more than you do, Canadian.

                As outmoded as it may be to focus on the accomplishments of white slavers, my humble opinion is that humanity has few things to be prouder of than the US constitution and the advancement in civilization that produced it.

                I believe in continuing that project, not erasing it and taking us back to grunts and sticks like you people.

        2. So Tony; While your jumping up and down about ‘Free Speech’ can you acknowledge to yourself as pointed out in the article that the LEFT want’s to repeal Section 230 so they can LEGALLY enact censorship??????? And DON’T DODGE the question.

    2. Ken’s got your number, lefty fucking ignoramus. Being actually dishonest is beyond your capabilities; you’re simply too stupid to do so:

      Ken Shultz
      January 10 at 11.14AM
      “…We often think Tony, Shrike, and ChemJeff are being dishonest–especially when they don’t seem to learn anything from having their arguments shredded and smeared in their faces everyday for years. But the fact that they don’t seem to learn anything–knowledge wise or in terms of critical thinking–may be consistent with the hypothesis that they’re just not that bright. And we shouldn’t necessarily assume that Binion, Boehm, or Britschgi are fundamentally different from them.
      Maybe the reason they try to make us feel is because they’re incapable of making us think. It is beyond their capabilities…”

      1. Ken is currently assessing why he’s still doing butt work for Trump while Republicans in Congress are currently lining up to impeach him.

        1. Democrats in Congress are currently lining up to impeach him.

          Oh also Murkowski, Romney, and maybe one or two more RINOs.

          So Democrats.

          Also – GFY traitor.

          1. Liz Cheney. Oh remember when the Cheneys were the bad Republicans?

            Don’t worry. In 10 years Don Jr. will be making heartfelt paeans to democracy from the Senate floor when President Dave Rubin does something stupid.

            1. Ken’s got your number.

          2. Tony doesn’t understand the difference between impeachment in the House and conviction in the Senate.

            Tony doesn’t know that you’re talking about the senate, he’s talking about the House, or why that matters.

            Tony doesn’t know that Liz Cheney has been a never-Trumper since forever–or what that even means.

            And we might be making a mistake to assume that he’s being dishonest about this. Just from this comment, he doesn’t appear to understand what he’s reading, what it means, or why.

            Incidentally, when we bother trying to explain things to him, and why he’s so wrong all the time, we’re probably doing the smart thing either.

            He’s batting practice, but who here thinks that Tony is smart enough to be persuaded with facts and reason? Has anyone ever seen any evidence that Tony can be persuaded with facts and reason?

            1. I thought I’d make Don Jr. a senator. Didn’t think he’d bother running for a lower office.

              Speaking of being wrong, support any presidents who initiated a terrorist attack on their own country lately?

              1. Ken’s got your number.

            2. “And we might be making a mistake to assume that he’s being dishonest about this. Just from this comment, he doesn’t appear to understand what he’s reading, what it means, or why.”
              I think you’ve got Tony’s number; the assumption that he possesses enough mental skills to separate fact from fantasy is probably assuming too much of his ability.
              ————————————————————————
              “He’s batting practice, but who here thinks that Tony is smart enough to be persuaded with facts and reason? Has anyone ever seen any evidence that Tony can be persuaded with facts and reason?”
              Absolutely not. Pace turd; Tony lies, gets called on it with evidence, whines, returns a day or two later repeating the same lies only to be handed his hat again. That is not dishonesty, it’s abysmal stupidity.
              Some time back, on a skeptics site, there was a pair of brothers who were certain a ‘lochie’ was resident in the SF Bay; fuzzy images provided. They got roundly panned and laughed at. Someone asked why such idiocy got a response at all. Well, they were good target practice.
              From late ’44, Rabual was reduced to a survival garrison, but retained some AA abilities; green bomber crews were assigned to random targets in Rabaul, as navigational and defensive practice.
              Tony is sort of the Reason bbs Rabual; too stupid to know he’s lost and easy practice for anyone looking to identify all manner of lefty bullshit. You name it, Tony has tried to use it in support of his idiocy. And (like the Japanese in late ’44) continues to claim he’s somehow ‘won’.
              Yep, shitstain, you’ve ‘won’ alright…

        2. Ken’s got your number.

    3. Good lord! Everything you write is just so,

      So…

      Stupid. Just mind numbingly, brain destroyingly, soul crushingly stupid.

      Even if you gulp down the progressive Kool-Aid in order to buy into everything progressive, this is still metaphysically stupid.
      Decades of effort s by Republicans to this credit the idea of journalism? Are you effing kidding me?

      The institution of journalism is destroyed. I don’t know how you missed it, but journalism is dead and gone. I think it was a corpse hiding behind a mask for a couple of decades, but between the Obama administration and the Trump administration, there is no journalism left in the United States. Not even a little bit.

      The fourth estate is critical to the functioning of a democratic society. The fourth estate must be independent. There are journalistic standards. Verification with independent sources, reporting on facts rather than opinions. There’s even a whole suite of rules about what kind of language to use.

      All of that went out the window 12 or more years ago. In an effort to carry Obama across the line and atone for their sins in allowing Bush to exist, the press gave up all independence. This is how he managed a dozen years in the spotlight where the toughest question he was ever asked was from a plumber in the street.

      But with Trump, the fourth estate quit even pretending. They openly rooted for a single party. We saw the New York Times dedicate their newsroom (not the editorial page) to the defeat of Donald Trump. They were so dedicated to it that after the Russia hoax failed, they publicly stated that they were going to find another method to get Trump. The result of this effort was a progressive think tank plot to foment racism and violence in the United States. The first salvo was the 1619 project.

      But you don’t have to look anywhere or connect any dots to figure out that the fourth estate is dead. All you have to do is look at this year’s election.

      The New York Post had a story of immense import about one of the candidates. And every single news organization in the country declined to carry it, declined to follow up on it, and most importantly, every single one of them labeled it false and disinformation. every single one of them used the opinion phrase, without evidence, to describe it.

      Every news organization in the country signed on to be a propaganda arm of the Democrat Party. They all lied to you. Every single one of them. Anyone who said the laptop was unverified was lying. And no, I don’t mean they were wrong. They were lying. These are not stupid people. When you have one of the co-conspirators come forward and verify it, you can’t run around claiming it is unverified. That is what we call a lie.

      I often vacillate as to whether you are paid to be here. If you are paid, you are certainly overpaid. Because the stuff you write is stupid. I mean, really, really stupid. It is not going to persuade anyone of anything. It is dumb even for a forum on the Rachel maddow show. This is a room full of people who believe in liberty. Coming in here proclaiming that slavery is freedom, and poverty is wealth is not going to win any converts. We can tell the difference between up and down.

      There may be mountains of policy that libertarians can disagree over, but none of it wanders over into whatever bizarre talking point-driven world you live in.

      1. Yes, that is the problem. You believe the horseshit they shoveled into your ears for decades.

        Journalism is just fine. The objective mainstream outfits are fine. The internet lets anyone report on anything they want. It lets people spew lies and organize violence too.

        Instead of asking why you believe with so much conviction some bullshit the New York Post has ALREADY RETRACTED about Joe Biden’s son but the New York Times won’t cover, you assume that literally all of mainstream journalism in the world, save FOX News and Breitbart, are in a deliberate and organized conspiracy against Republicans.

        The same Republicans who controlled the United States against the popular will and just got caught trying to destroy the government.

        No Cyto, the things you believe are lies. You weren’t properly educated. You think Donald Trump makes a good president. Whenever I question whether there actually is a globalist Jew conspiracy to lie to me, I remember that fact and know all is right. With my brain at least.

        1. Again with the straw man and talking points.

          That stuff might work over on Reddit

          1. He just keeps posting the same shit over and over even after it blows up in his face, because that’s what he’s paid to do.

            It’s perfectly clear by now that Tony has a list of talking points and that’s all.

          2. Psst.
            Ask him if he’s got copies of the posts supposedly “organizing a violent assault”.

            I’ve not seen any from the lying DNC bots in the legacy media, so I doubt he’s seen them. He just believed whatever he’s been told. And all the while accusing others of…well, it’s bog standard lefty projection at this point.

        2. So let’s count the lies. Looks like you ran beyond your prepared talking points.

          “the New York Post has ALREADY RETRACTED”

          Lie. The story has not been retracted. Nobody pretends that the story was not true. The best you can get is people pretending that it either doesn’t mean anything, or it doesn’t mean what they say it means. Even the Biden camp does not pretend that it was not his laptop. They just go with a blanket “Russian disinformation” that Brennan offered up for them.

          “Controlled the government against the popular will.”

          Lie. Despite being… How can I put this charitably… Challenged?.. somehow he actually managed to increase his popularity and support among the people across four years.

          “Caught trying to destroy the government”

          Lie.

          And a dumb one at that. Trying to convince the Congress to decertify electors probably was an idiotic maneuver, but it is a constitutional one. And he failed. it certainly does not come under the heading of destroying the government.

          Maybe just don’t go off script? Stick to whatever talking points they feed you and make your stupid little trollish comments. It’s frustrating that you don’t have a brain in your head, but it’s revealing when you try to exercise the one you don’t have.

          1. Oh, and if you don’t know where I stood on Trump as president after all these years of posting here, you win triple prizes for being a moron.

            Flag that one as another lie.

          2. I’m not even sure where the “IT WAS RETRACTED!!!!!” lie comes from. The Post has stood behind it the entire time, and last referenced it (and JounoTech’s muzzle) like a week ago. Their in-the-club cousins at the Journal eventually, halfheartedly, sought to confirm the story (the only legacy publication that did so to my knowledge) and reported the same factual content while disputing the allegation of Joe’s knowledge/involvement.

            There were stories where some of the NYP writers didn’t want to be part of the byline to protect their professional/personal reputations, but I hardly think that’s something I would want to call attention to while disputing the assertion that our culture of free speech is in decline. But Tony is an idiot so…

    4. “Wha whatabout the decades-long effort by Republicans and the right to discredit the very idea of journalism itself and turn the US into a bifurcated factual universe?”

      I think that I can trace where the Republican Party went wrong to the rise of conservative talk radio in the late 80’s and into the 90’s. It wasn’t about the internet. It was about how some conservative opinion commentators discovered that they could get great ratings telling other conservatives that the liberal media couldn’t be trusted. The left was trying to destroy everything great about America, and no one will tell you the truth but us!

      The conservative movement shifted from being about ideas of limited government to being about grievances and backlash to ‘political correctness’ and ‘secularism’. Outrage over just about anything and everything that Democrats wanted to do became the M.O. of the new conservative thought leaders.

      1. the Republican Party went wrong (by saying) … liberal media couldn’t be trusted. The left was trying to destroy everything great about America

        The 1619 project? The Green New Deal? Intersectionality? Critical Theory? The BLM Riots? The Great Reichstag Fire of 2021?

        1. “The Great Reichstag Fire of 2021?”

          Um, is this supposed to be a claim that the Capitol riot is going to be used as some kind of excuse for Democrats to take over, Nazi-style? Is it really necessary for you to try and prove my point so completely with conspiracy thinking?

          If you don’t like the 1619 Project, argue against it. If you don’t like the Green New Deal, vote for people that will oppose it as you speak against it. I don’t even know what “intersectionality” is, and “critical [race?] theory” is, again, something you are welcome to argue against if you don’t like it. The “BLM Riots” are not justification for what happened on Jan. 6, so it is possible to be against both violence in the name of ‘racial justice’ and ‘stop the steal’, as I am.

          My point is that by creating its own alternative universe, where only True Believers should be listened to, Republicans have removed any check that reality would impose upon its fringe elements. Basically, they created exactly the kind of echo chamber that they claimed to be rebelling against.

          1. But have you disavowed the BLM violence, looting and arson TODAY? Can you disavow it without dog whistles?

            (taking a page from grandstanding WH press assholes)

      2. It was about how some conservative opinion commentators discovered that they could get great ratings telling other conservatives that the liberal media couldn’t be trusted.

        Funny how those guys and the Religious Right turned out to be more correct than we expected.

  32. Before social media we had letters to the editor, self-published books, or standing on a street corner and handing out pamphlets.
    Now, if I want to comment on something, I can get into many comment sections like this, I can comment on most YOUTUBE posts for free. We have so much more freedom of expression now with social media. For some reason, I am outlawed from registering for TWITTER and FACEBOOK, but it’s like being turned away from a restaurant because you bad mouthed the food. You just get your food somewhere else.

    1. And if there are 330 million users on Twitter, and 5,000 users here, what impact do you think being banned from Twitter will have on your ability to communicate your ideas to others? What impact do you think being banned from reason will have?

      Is having a potential reach of 300 million people more impactful, or less impactful?

      1. The whole idea is to contain the terrorists so they don’t spread their violent bullshit to your aunt.

        You understand this perfectly well when we do it to ISIS.

        The only difference is these people are far more dangerous to the US than ISIS ever has been.

        1. Holy crap! Who gave you that idiotic talking point? You need to go back and tell them to feed you better crap.

          LOL

          Yeah! That idiot with a buffalo on his head is more dangerous than ISIS, Al-Qaeda, and Red Dawn combined.

          1. Did ISIS ever breach the capitol?

            You really need to watch the videos. And pretend they aren’t all of your social cohort. Pretend they were Muslims. Go on. It just takes a minuscule amount of imagination.

            1. I haven’t seen anyone on here defend the violence that those idiots perpetrated at the Capitol. Those thugs should all get justice for their outrageous attacks. All of them.

              But I have NEVER seen a MSM publication come out with a full-throated condemnation of the hundreds of nights of violence, vandalism, looting, and arson by antifa & BLM and point out that those thugs were incited by BLM, DNC, NYT, WaPo, NPR, etc. In fact, those violent riots when many hundreds of times as many people were hurt and property damaged were intentionally donw-played as ‘mostly peaceful.’

              1. Well that’s very sad for you isn’t it.

                Write as many letters to the editor as your little fingers can muster. Nobody’s stopping you. Yet.

                1. Oooh. Are you going for some “lamest non-response” award there?

            2. Did Tony seriously just compare a broken window and some selfies to 9/11?

              His boss needs to move him to TeenVogue.

              1. Yokels have killed more Americans over the years than Al Qaeda too, and I’m not even talking about the Covid they breathe on people deliberately.

                Between the Civil War and Jim Crow up to the Murrah Building and El Paso, white rightwingers make Al Qaeda look like a movie of the week.

                1. The Civil War and Jim Crow were the Democratic party you ahistorical retard. So was Birmingham, Selma, the Little Rock bombing, Bull Conner, the Klu Klux Klan, Slavery, the Trail of Tears and the Indian Removal Act, the anti-Chinese laws, the Japanese Interment camps and the Indian wars.

                  They all sit on YOUR shoulders you fascist fuck, not some Republican kid in North Dakota.

                  1. I feel like you might actually believe what you think you’re saying.

                    I’m not judging people for their labels, I’m judging them for their actions and beliefs.

                    You’re a regular fountain of bad-faith right-wing horseshit.

                2. Haha. Yeah. White people are terrible.

                  What a doosh.

                  1. He blamed the Civil War casualties on…who? Rush Limbaugh? Ted Cruz maybe? Some “right wingers” anyway. Which just goes to show how his “arguments” are completely made up of projection and fantasy. Oh, and straw men.

                    Anyway, that Civil War claim shows he’s gone off the talking-points guidance.

                    Tony, I feel like you might actually believe what you think you’re saying.

      2. “Is having a potential reach of 300 million people more impactful, or less impactful?”

        I explain my thoughts on this in more detail in the comment I just posted below. Basically, though, I can summarize as: No one is entitled to an audience of 300 million people.

        1. That is good reasoning! Everyone in the great unwashed middle who doesn’t care about politics one way or the other should inadvertently consume a ideological monoculture. That will be great for society!

          1. “That is good reasoning! Everyone in the great unwashed middle who doesn’t care about politics one way or the other should inadvertently consume a ideological monoculture. That will be great for society!”

            Um, did I say anything at all about an ideological monoculture? Perhaps try saying something coherent instead of ranting.

            1. That is where we are.

              If you have a public square that is on private grounds and only deer leader and his supporters are allowed to speak there, you have an ideological monoculture.

              this is what they want. This is why they want people they disagree with kicked off of these platforms. It is not because of these nonsensical rants about the end of society and terrorism everywhere. That is stupid. That is simply a rhetorical flourish to accomplish their goal. Notice that the goal has not changed over the last several years. It is always to ban people they disagree with.

              So, you may be technically correct in the analysis that no one is entitled to any particular platform. But that is not the argument, is it? That is a canard designed to conceal the real argument. The real argument is, should one political party be able to use their political power and influence to ensure that their political opposition is nowhere to be seen in the public sphere?

              That is where we actually are. All these other hypotheticals are not reality. Ted Cruz is not going around shooting people in the face for not reading his tweets.

              1. The real argument is, should one political party be able to use their political power and influence to ensure that their political opposition is nowhere to be seen in the public sphere?

                That is demonstrably not happening.

                It would be nice if we could stop catastrophizing what is actually happening.

                I just looked – Breitbart, Redstate, Gateway Pundit, National Review, The Federalist, they are all up and running. Most of them are hosted by US Big Tech firms right now.

                1. How else would these people know what to whine about?

            2. No, Jason, you (intentionally?) avoided noticing the impending ideological monoculture. It does effect the content of your post though, don’t be surprised if people bring it up.

              Anyway, I thought you were busy building your own billion dollar media platform. Though I don’t know why, sounds like you’d be real welcome on Twitter/FB etc.

        2. “I can summarize as: No one is entitled to an audience of 300 million people.”

          Everyone is entitled to an audience of 7.5 billion, you censorious fuck. Who the hell are you to decide whose voices can and can’t be heard.

          You do understand that this is an (ostensibly) libertarian site, right?

          1. “Everyone is entitled to an audience of 7.5 billion, you censorious fuck. Who the hell are you to decide whose voices can and can’t be heard.”

            Uh, no. You do not have a right to have someone else’s hardware, software, satellites and fiber optics beam your words to the whole fucking planet. You only have a right to ask or bargain with people to assist you in spreading your words. You have a right for the government, with its monopoly on power, to be prevented from restricting your efforts in doing that.

            Nor do you have the right for people to actually have to listen to you. If people don’t want to lend you their ears and be an audience to what you have to say, then they don’t have to. You seem to think that you have the right to the outcome of everyone hearing what you have to say.

            “You do understand that this is an (ostensibly) libertarian site, right?”

            I don’t give a fuck what kind of site this is. I originally started coming here because the Volokh blog moved in from the Washington Post, and I liked the discussions on law and the Constitution that they have, even if I am not libertarian. I do find it useful to read the perspectives of writers here, even when I don’t agree, since I like to expose myself to multiple viewpoints. I’m having a hard time breaking myself of the habit of arguing in the comments though. It is clearly not worth the time and effort, when people like you are just looking for a fight, rather than a real debate.

    2. The problem with your model is that there is so much noise in these places that your voice gets drowned out.
      Google/Apple throws Parler out – so what. It’s a little less convenient to side-load the app from a third-party mirror, but not that difficult.
      AWS de-platforms Parler, go back to the old-fashioned way, build your own data center. The great thing about Amazon’s move is highlighting the fact that you can’t trust them. They make money when people use their service – AWS. If the move against Parler motivates more businesses to abandon “cloud”, that’s a good thing. Too much centralization is a problem whether it’s government (U.S./North Korea) or technology. The “cloud” is nothing more than renting out space in a data center. Like renting an apartment vs. building your own home.

      1. You sound like a real computer old-timer, Very knowledgeable, etc. And in principle, what you say about decentralization if absolutely true. But…

        https://medium.com/unsafe-space/welcome-to-the-digital-reign-of-terror-b0c7e8d7c3a5

        Hate to keep spamming this, but it sure sounds like the SV Overlords CAN INDEED control the Internet. It just ain’t what it used to be.

        1. Correct! 34 years as a software engineer. Never worked for a Big Tech firm and never would.
          But their control depends on apathy. I see it in my family and friend: posting the equivalent of cute cat videos and looking only to be entertained and “safe” whatever the F that is. They won’t migrate from FB and Twitter because they’re just too damn lazy and apathetic.

  33. Swisher: …going into the Capitol building to do this, if it was organized on your site, what should happen on your site?

    Matze: Look, if it was illegally organized and against the law and what they were doing, they would have gotten it taken down. But I don’t feel responsible for any of this and neither should the platform, considering we’re a neutral town square that just adheres to the law.

    The question Swisher seems to want to ask is what should happen if something illegal was organized on the site, then what should Parler do about it? Matze’s response seems to suggest that Parler would remove something illegal, which I would assume would include direct threats and planning to carry out violent acts. He just seems to disagree that anything illegal was planned on Parler. He then backs up to a general statement about being a “neutral town square”.

    This is the big issue that needs to be debated without retreating to our partisan and ideological corners about which side did or does worse things. What responsibility does an online platform have regarding user-generated content? Whether it is liability or an obligation to moderate content, where do we draw lines?

    My understanding of the reason for Section 230 was to actually encourage those hosting user generated content to apply some basic rules without being liable for things that they choose not to moderate.

    The main fears here seem to be about whether ‘Big Tech’ will collude or whether so many companies will bow to pressure from government or left-wing political correctness that it would effectively silence opposing viewpoints. I do get that, but we are in a rather difficult bind here.

    We do need to be able to deal with people that will use social media for illegal activity. Whether it is extremist political groups trying to call for and coordinate violence, child pornography and human trafficking, and even cyberbullying, people that break the law online need to be held accountable and businesses that operate services that such criminals use need to have incentives to limit the ability of criminals to use their services.

    At its core, this is the same balance we’ve been trying to strike between “law and order” and our fundamental liberties for over two centuries. I am not staking out a definitive position or answer to these problems, at least not now. I’ve made my share of comments here about this topic, but I am still thinking things through and may express views different than I have in the past and may change my mind again. But here is one thought I am having. What is different now than the way things were 30 years ago?

    Prior to the World Wide Web (and the internet more generally), extremists had to reach out to each other through mailers, pamphlets, newsletters and other printed work, or even just by meeting up in person. If anyone went to a printing company and wanted 1000 flyers made, the company would have every right to look at the flyer and decide if it wanted the job. That person had no right to force the company to print materials it disagreed with, and no one could claim that this person’s 1st Amendment rights were being violated.

    That people have a right to hold whatever views they want and a right to Free Speech and to publish their views with our Free Press protections does not mean that anyone has to help them spread their views.

    What has changed over my lifetime is that it is now so easy for anyone to spread their views to a very wide audience. I think that people have come to believe that they are entitled to the internet and its ability to spread their views widely. But I think that this may be wrong. A website that is hosted by some other business is not sufficiently different from that flyer that a printing company can turn down. Everything underlying the internet is hardware and software that people create and maintain, and no one is entitled to the labor and capital investment that others have made to create this medium.

    When it comes to the “marketplace of ideas,” perhaps the willingness of other people to help you spread your message is part of what distinguishes those ideas worth spreading from those that aren’t.

    1. If anyone involved was honest. But this isn’t about what the ideas are. this is about team. Those ideas are from another team. Therefore we are going to stop the other team.

      And the reason they want to do that is not because of what the ideas are. It is because of the bycatch. They don’t care about convincing those other people of the superiorities of their ideas. What they care about is convincing the 60% of the people who couldn’t give to craps about it that they are the true and holy bearers of all that is light and wonderful.

      This is not about a marketplace of ideas. This is about political power. They don’t want people they disagree with to be seen. It isn’t about the ideas. Political parties these days are not really about ideas. It is about one team versus the other team. shut up the other team, and we can say what we like about them.

      1. “Disagree with” is doing a lot of work in that sentence. Nobody shut anything down in response to four years or ten years or forty years of lies from Republican media mouthpieces.

        But just as I was certain would happen way back in the 90s when FOX News was spewing its first lies, it led to an attack on the US government. That’s what precipitated this. And it wasn’t no fucking Antifa false flag.

        Also nobody’s legal rights are being taken away who didn’t commit a crime. There is no legal right to someone else’s shit. You know this perfectly well.

        1. Enjoy that straw man! And you still didn’t even kick its butt. That’s pathetic

        2. Now your not even coming up with arguments anymore, just throwing shit.

          Media Matters needs to ask for it’s fifty-cents back.

        3. There is no legal right to someone else’s shit.

          Stop the presses! Tony just admitted that taxation is theft!

          -jcr

          1. “Stop the presses! Tony just admitted that taxation is theft!”

            If the government doesn’t have a right to your taxes, then you don’t have a right to the government’s services, either.

  34. Frankly, many of these bans were long overdue. People engaging in illegal activity should be banned from all platforms. Trump had repeatedly and flagrantly broken the law on Twitter – like, the actual law, not even Twitter law.

    The thing is, Twitter basically made a “different” set of rules for public figures, which enabled them to post things that would get other users banned.

    They need to eliminate this special treatment entirely. Treat everyone just like a normal user, ban anyone – even celebrities – for breaking Twitter’s rules.

    It will make the platform a much nicer place.

    Social media is deeply toxic because of the lack of constraints on people engaging in brigading, organized online harassment, and spreading disinformation and radicalization.

    The overwhelming majority of users don’t want to have to deal with these people. Why should they? Those people are awful.

    Moreover, what kind of advertiser wants their brand associated with such content? This is not a rhetorical question – these platforms are free because of these advertisers. If people are constantly on there shouting about how we need to burn down places, who wants to have their name associated with that?

    But we need to hit all the people, not just some of them.

    If we ban the few percent of the population who are insane wackadoodles, it will be a much better place for the rest of us.

    A lot of people don’t use social media because awful people are constantly attacking other people on there. They don’t want to be the victim of random internet mobs.

    Wackadoodles who constantly attack people have a chilling effect on other, more useful speech.

    There’s nothing preventing them from having other platforms – but a platform full of people being nasty all the time is not something that many advertisers are going to want to touch, and is going to have to deal with issues surrounding illegal content being posted all the time.

    If the far left and the far right all get deplatformed from social media sites, I don’t see the problem.

    You can always create your own webpage. You have no right to shout at people on someone else’s.

    The Parler thing and in particular cloud services and others shutting them down is much more problematic.

    1. It is funny that you think this is about some sort of illegal tweets.

      I note that you say it would be great if extremists on the left and right were banned. I’ll have you note, this is not happening. It has never been happening. This is a one-way street, and it always has been. This is a continuation of the campus shout down of a decade or more ago.

      Notice that no one is calling for Maxine Waters to be banned? there are no great hues and cries to get rid of AOC, no platforms are moving to block black lives matter or even antifa.

      So your idea that violent extremists should be eliminated from public discussions, whatever their political affiliation, really has nothing to do with what is going on. This is about ensuring that the establishment maintains tight control over everything. In this case, it is the Democrat establishment. but they will tolerate and establishment Republican from time to time to, if he manages to squeeze through the keyhole.

      1. Maxine Waters has told her followers to find Republicans and harass them in public and it would be naive to pretend mobs of people screaming and intimidating others aren’t a quarter-inch away from actual violence.

        Her word were MUCH closed to “inciting violence” than ANYTHING I’ve ever seen from Trump. She’s done it repeatedly, with no consequences. People on Twitter mob, intimidate, doxx and threaten others all the time without consequences.

        Some Trump followers, in Talib’s memorable usage, “did something” and my GOD! People like Tony are quite literally hysterical. In actual fact, it wasn’t nearly as big a thing as what we saw last summer (many things), but when anyone asks “Hey, are we actually serious about this ‘incitement’ thing?”, the response is more hysterical bullshit (Tony).

        THAT’S a lot of what this is about. And every single defense of it I’ve seen is disingenuous, slippery, off-topic or just plain bullshit.

    2. It all comes down to who get’s to decide what’s wackadoodle.

      Where’s the line between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism?

      Is believing that the Russians stole the 2016 good, but that the Democrats did it in 2020, bad?

      Is believing that all religion is evil, bigotry? Is believing that Islam, or Christianity, ect. is the only way to God, bigotry? Where’s the line on religion? The Hindu Tantra and Shakta practices can get weird.

      What if you like to role-play rape with your spouse, or eating poop gets you hard, or you’re into pain?

      What if you’re one of those virtuous pedo support groups?

      What if in the next twenty years society takes a big swing towards the old Handmaid’s Tale bogeyman, and takes point on all the censorship excuses the left is currently making?
      What if white leftish political ideology isn’t the dominant ideology of the clerisy anymore forty years from now, but society no longer has the free speech and free expression protections in place?

    3. “Trump had repeatedly and flagrantly broken the law on Twitter – like, the actual law, not even Twitter law.”

      Can you give us an example?

      1. No. They cannot.

  35. The commercial internet is practically a normal public square. It handles scams, hate speech, spamming, and the like just fine. It keeps violations of civic order minimized, like any decent real society.

    On social media, as they say, we are the product, so maybe that’s the problem.

    Forget “fire in a crowded theater.” Trumpers, free marketeers all, are suddenly demanding the right to take over the theater and demand everyone listen to their rants from stage.

    Also, they want to occupy the US Capitol building and pass laws with no elections.

    “They can take our pedophile hangouts, but they’ll never take our… what was it again? Oh oh, freedom, sure, whatever.”

    1. That is not what is happening. Quite the opposite is what is happening. One group has grabbed the mic and demanded that no one else be allowed to use it. That is what has happened.

      And useful idiots like you run around trying to change the subject.

      1. We grab the mic away from people inciting acts of terrorism. It’s a normal tool in the anti-terrorism toolbox.

        We don’t ask our corporations to give them free mics.

        1. oh really, when did you deplatform Black lives matter? When did you deplatform Antifa? When did you deplatform AOC, Bernie Sanders, or any other Democrat? remember that guy who got all fired up by Bernie Sanders rhetoric and went to go hunt a bunch of Republicans with an automatic rifle? That’s like, honest to goodness terrorism. None of this fake nonsense where a bunch of people LARPing for a couple of hours is relabeled and rebranded as terrorism and sedition.

          I like that you think you are a part of the movement though, it’s quaint. “We”. Funny.

          1. Ding ding ding. BLM and Antifa are not terrorist organizations. Neither is Bernie Sanders a terrorist leader. Ask the FBI. Thank you for playing.

            Now turn off Crap News and read something real for a change and then maybe you can spend as little time as possible being horrified about what you bought into and we can move on.

            Liberals love forgiving people. You’re lucky in that way.

            1. BLM and Antifa are not terrorist organizations. Neither is Bernie Sanders a terrorist leader

              Neither was Trump, and neither are Wednesday’s protesters, you demagogic ass.

              1. Protesters?

                Can you even stand from the amount of right-wing media you’re having to huff to get through this?

                Trumpism lost. It took the Republican party down with it. It lost because it chose to value the emotional needs of a fat orange lunatic over the health and safety of Americans. And you people are still crying about it.

                My God does Hillary Clinton have bigger testicles than any of you people.

                1. Did you let a 5-year-old take over the account?

                  1. The women’s march. There you go. That’s your analogous situation. Pussy hats galore, not a single terrorist attack on US democracy.

                    Republicans don’t deserve to be in power, and the reasons are as obvious to everyone else as they have been to me for years.

      2. One group has grabbed the mic and demanded that no one else be allowed to use it. That is what has happened.

        Well, Cyto, when the microphones are privatized, that is kinda how private property rights work.

        Do you think that the microphones shouldn’t be privatized?

        1. Again, that is a stupid argument. The argument isn’t that they don’t have the right to say who’s allowed to be on their platform.

          The argument is a simple one. They are wrong. Full stop.

          If you are so partisan that you think that that is a debatable point, there’s not much help for you.

    2. demanding the right to take over the theater and demand everyone listen to their rants

      Stupid lie is stupid, as usual. No Trumper has made any demand that anyone else listen to what they have to say. They’re not setting up their own version of mandatory indoctrination like you lefturds do in your “critical race theory training” that you’re terrorizing employers into buying.

      -jcr

    3. That didn’t even make any sense. Go to bed.

      1. Heh. That was to Tony’s worse-than-usual collection of unexamined assumptions, unproven assertions and half-constructed straw men, above.

  36. I supported Trump because despite his anti-free speech rhetoric, I knew that Biden would be far worse. Trump lost because first of all too many of his followers didn’t use their free speech to fight for him before the election with the same relentlessness that they now push ‘election fraud’ nonsense. (As will now be demonstrated.) But also I’ve discovered that many of them claim to feel betrayed by Trump for not doing more to prevent censorship and so they intentionally undermined his campaign (even as they justify violence at the capital). And finally, many of them want conflict and war that they think will result from Biden’s censorship regime.

    And I guarantee that none of the rioters at the capital fought for their principles online, or they fought and had their asses handed to them. That’s why they were happy to get ejected from social media – it gives them relief from the abuse and a handy excuse for violence.

    The obvious solution is smaller government – so that it can’t censor or oppress us. The main threat today is social security & medicare – government programs are bankrupting us (yes slash defense too). Thus the enemy isn’t dems or RINOs but our own parents and grandparents. We must beg them to release us from their death grip. Then we’ll be free and won’t need to storm the capital.

    1. Plus starving people don’t overthrow governments. Kim Jong-Un knows this.

      1. Not sure what you’re trying to say but government policies create far more poverty and starvation than they prevent. Rich people are stingy because they think, “Let government solve the problem.” Or more astutely: “Why should I give to charity when government is still creating so much suffering.” They will be more generous as governments are scaled down. In fact they will create resort colonies so people can retire and leave jobs for others to work and support themselves and thereby obviate big government and charities entirely.

        1. So you think Social Security was invented despite widespread health and prosperity among the elderly from all the handouts the rich were giving them?

          1. I’m pretty sure the Vietnam War wasn’t invented because we were all going to die if Vietnam fell to the communists.

            1. Between the two of those, only one was championed by the capitalists.

              1. Gee: I thought we were all capitalists. Who were the crazies?

                1. We’re certainly all forced to be.

                2. Sorry: they took a vote.

                  Democracy!

                  1. It’s no skin off my nose, I can cope with capitalism. It’s just that it leaves so many people who aren’t as smart or lucky starving.

                    1. Capitalism is the worst economic system, except for all the others.

                    2. Sometimes Tony concern trolls, pretending he’s free market and libertarian.
                      Always remember posts like this where he demonstrates he’s an unrepentant socialist.

                    3. I’m not really into labels. You should care less about them. You might say something stupid like a Democrat in the 1920s is the same as a Democrat in the 2020s.

                      I’ve been a capitalist my every breathing moment. I wouldn’t even know what to do with government-issued food cubes.

          2. I think a crisis was exacerbated as pretext for massive social programs. Just as COVID is exacerbated to demoralize small business capitalists and push UBI.

            I’m a libertarian. Of course I oppose government programs. This should not come as a surprise.

            As for the elderly, they are the richest generation in history and can easily afford to care for themselves and their needy peers without selling their own grandkids into decades of debt slavery. If not – our society is doomed no matter what we do.

            Like I said – the enemy isn’t dems or RINOs but our own parents and grandparents. (And if you are concerned for yourself then make up with your kids and maybe they won’t leave you to starve alone in the streets.)

            1. Old people can’t eat their houses. You can be a libertarian, but try being one without a bunch of misleading statistics. Of course I might as well ask special olympians to participate in the real olympics.

              Hey, I’ll take silly arguments against the modern social safety net any day over this crap. That’s what I came here for.

              1. But anyway you’re proving my point that Trump lost not because of ‘election fraud’ or ‘social media censorship’ but because of the appeal of socialism. We didn’t fight for him and deserve what we got. (I did but too many of us didn’t.) There is no excuse for violence.

                But hopefully Biden’s win will heighten the fear of capitalists and force them to fight smarter to take the country back. This censorship doesn’t help but it’s not fatal. Like I said, the enemy is our own family.

                1. The state Joe Biden represented for an eon is the headquarters of more than one million corporations. Only one half of that sentence is an exaggeration.

                  Everyone’s a capitalist dude. Democrats are just far better capitalists than Republicans. And Trump isn’t an anything but a Trumpist. He’d enact communism if he thought he’d get a Twitter like.

            2. Don’t blame your parents or grandparents for things that Congress did.

              There is a temporary solution to save Social Security and Medicare. Make both of them means-tested. With an income above $50k one should have his benefits reduced, and above $150k they should be zero. This would extend the programs at least a decade or so. Simultaneously they should phase out mandatory SS and Medicare, and provide incentives for employers to provide better retirement benefits – mostly 401k’s based on defined contributions.

  37. I’ll give you this. Terrorist attacks do have a way of causing governments to restrict liberties.

    Maybe we can get back to those conversations once Y’all Qaeda stops dominating this place in their never-ending quest for 72 virgin cousin-sisters.

    1. Probably the best was the Patriot Act. I love that name.

      1. They used to be better at the Orwell stuff. Karl Rove, you’re sorely missed I’m sure.

        1. Perhaps they could repeal the first amendment, and call it the “democracy amendment.”

          1. wellcome to the online job. I make 85 dollar an hour posting to internet. Very easy job and anyone can do it. Everyone need money during this time of COVID Crisis. For Detail Click On here… Read More

        2. “They used to be better at the Orwell stuff.”

          Tell me again about Wednesday’s Reichstag fire, Tony, and why America need harsh new laws against speech to protect you from the proles.

          1. Yes yes, very amusing. Rightwingers who think they understand Orwell, sheesh.

  38. So much performative outrage theater. So much conspiratorial thinking. Is that all what libertarianism is nowadays?

    Fact: Conservatives en masse are not “silenced” by Big Tech. There are zillions of conservative people, tweets, ideas, posts, websites, etc., all over the Internet, including on Twitter, Facebook, AWS, etc.

    Fact: What AWS did w.r.t. Parler is like a landlord kicking a tenant out of its office building. What Google and Apple did w.r.t. Parler was to delete the special shortcut to access Parler from their app store. Neither Parler nor anyone else is entitled to space on AWS’s servers. Neither Parler nor anyone else is entitled to have a special shortcut in anyone’s app store. None of them banned Parler from the Internet. They don’t have the power to do so! It is absolutely possible for ANYONE to access the Internet without the help of Google, Facebook, Microsoft, AWS, Apple, Twitter, or any other Big Tech firm. Is it easy? NO. Big Tech makes it very easy to connect to the Internet. That’s why they’re Big Tech! But their help is not absolutely required.

    Fact: These claims of “soft fascism” are unsupported conspiratorial thinking, brought to us by the same crowd who take it as a tenet of faith that Democrats Are Evil(tm) and then rationalize every issue with that conclusion in mind. Just because some Democrat now works at Google does not conclusively prove that Google is under Nancy Pelosi’s thumb. Sheesh. A much more reasonable explanation for Big Tech’s actions is corporate ass-covering. They don’t want to be unintentionally involved in the next wave of insurrectionist activity. Big corporations for the most part are not raging ideologues. They tend to operate conservatively (in demeanor, not in ideology) always with one eye on the legal department and possible legal liability.

    Seems to me, this whole thing is really less about “free speech” and more about perceived unfair treatment at the hands of Big Tech. Sure, no one is entitled to have server space at AWS, but why shouldn’t Parler get just as fair treatment as anyone else doing business with AWS? Sure, no one is entitled to have a shortcut in Google’s app store, but why shouldn’t Parler get just as fair treatment as anyone else who writes apps for the app store? And the libertarian answer, AS ALWAYS, is that private property owners have no obligation to be “fair” according to anyone else’s definition of the term other than their own. You don’t think it’s fair? Tough noogies. Not your property, not your call. That doesn’t just apply to Big Tech, that applies to every property owner everywhere. If a millionaire chooses to spend his money on hookers and blow, instead of on donating food to the poor, you may not think that’s “fair” to the poor, but that’s not your call.

    Finally: What exactly do you advocate for the state to do?
    The libertarian approach is: Do nothing, and competition will work things out.
    But that doesn’t seem to be a popular approach around here.

    Do you want political affiliation to be added to civil rights law as a protected class? So it would be illegal for AWS to refuse to do business with either Republicans or Democrats on that basis alone? Is that what you want?

    Do you want the state to use antitrust law against Big Tech? How would that solve the problem of perceived unfairness? Facebook would still have the ability to be just as unfair to either Republicans or Democrats if it was Facebook alone and not Facebook + Instagram, no?

    Do you want to get rid of Section 230? Of course this means MORE content moderation in social media, as the forums themselves would then be liable for all content. Only the most banal polite opinions would ever make it past the censors then. If you think conservative opinions right now are too “edgy” for the liberal censors in Big Tech, what do you think would be the result in a post-230 world? So radical conservatives would be deplatformed, but so would radical liberals, and all we would have left is cat videos.

    Do you want the state to nationalize social media? If you like Jack Dorsey’s content moderation standards, you’re gonna love Kamala Harris’ standards!

    We have just endured a national tragedy that was fomented based on hyperbole, lies and conspiracy theories about a stolen election. Let’s not contribute to more tragic behavior by getting the state even more involved in regulating speech and the Internet than it already is, based on hyperbole, lies, and conspiratorial thinking on this issue as well.

    1. If you’re worried: the government isn’t going to do anything to social media based on the comments here.

    2. Your theories in vacuum is precisely why libertarians do not win and ultimately cannot govern.

      Landlords rarely evict a tenant who pays their rent on time based on politics or random tweets like “let’s go and have our voices heard”. When they do have to evict, the tenants are given time to move and certain protocols are put in place. Our former landlord was extremely courteous when he asked to move and assisted us in a number of ways.

      What’s happening on Amazon and Google is an ideologically driven purge. It’s functionally no different than your boss ignoring your coworkers constantly breaking company rule but firing YOU on the spot the second you break it. You’ll say “oh well they’re private companeez” and walk away, but most people would sue the pants out of the employer. I can guarantee that Twitter has all kinds of violent content that Jack can’t manually remove, and it remains on all platforms and digital marketplace.

      Let’s say all companies should be completely free to hire who they want to, and 90% of all businesses field an all white workforce. In a free market, I would support that, since unrestrained market forces and fairer minds would prevail. But what if racist right wingers controlled 90% of all markets, licensing powers, and copyright? You’ll just say “build your own economy that cater to minorities”? That society would NOT be free, it only has crooked people practicing autonomy without govt. interference.

      You exist in vacuum in which you mindlessly defer to private businesses and spout freedoms in the absolute terms, without EVER applying them any real situations. If your boss switched dress codes on the workforce every week, everyone would lose their minds. If the government forced the company to be reasonable in how they enforce TOS, that is not an intrusion on anyone’s rights.

      Were anyone’s rights violated in 1995 when Hallmark publishing wouldn’t accept their gothic horror novel submission? Or when any publishers only accepted manuscripts from agented writers, partly to avoid lawsuits? No? Did any libertarians say these publishers were nationalized? If we DID repeal section 230 and twitter had to act like a publisher, how is my rights violated? I had a right for my manuscript to be published and receive royalties?

      People and companies have contracts. The government enforces it and provides basic framework or regulation. That is not out of place in a libertarian society. But much as a marriage based on contract (instead of government licensed marriage) cannot simply afford all power to one party, Twitter cannot simply suspend accounts on a subjective whim when they make money on views created by them. We are effectively artists, authors, contents creators on social media.

      You’re yelling at people to let bullies bully them because they have a right to bully. That’s stupid, and not even entirely true. And to be sure, the purge occurred WAY before 2021. YT is known to demonetize nearly entirely channels for no reason or for trivial reasons. It is entirely appropriate for the government to protect the rights of content creators who put in time and money to make those videos. If a company makes money on all anything
      I provide them, I have some rights, period.

      1. Government should help consumers enforce TOS rules. And the various internet sites should be required to post their TOS w/r/t remaining on the site very conspicuously, in support of transparency. The TOS should be required to follow the same standards as any employment contract w/r/t discrimination, i.e. no discrimination w/r/t race, religion, sex, disability, political pursuasion, etc., because essentially the users are employees whose activities are being monetized by the site, just as your time is monetized by any other employer.

  39. Apple, Google and Amazon de-infrastructuring Parler reminds me of the Tucker automobile company being blocked out by Ford and General Motors by using their leverage to prevent suppliers from selling to Tucker.

  40. The free speech platform made possible by the Internet is a new thing. People do not have traditions for dealing with it. Americans (and everyone) need to be treated like adults that can, in the long run, come to reasonable decisions. The more we let “authority” make decisions for us, the less mature we become. Yes, early Internet level free speech is going to be wild and unruly. But, ultimately, readers will become more discerning (1) and writers will learn to do more research before publishing. Peace comes from freedom, not “government” “authority.”

    (1) There is the story of the guy who drove to a Virginia pizza parlor because he believed that the Clintons were running a child prostitution ring out of a pizza parlor (https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/pizzagate-from-rumor-to-hashtag-to-gunfire-in-dc/2016/12/06/4c7def50-bbd4-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html).

    1. I’ve been to that place. The sex was OK, but the pizza was terrible.

      1. Think of where the cheese came from.

      2. You didn’t want just any “old” pizza place, right?

  41. Social media is essentially an entertainment service set up to maximize traffic and create habitual users. “Free” speech will be permitted only to the extent that it serves those ends. When the name-calling and conspiracy-theorizing turns to calls to arms, off you go.

    Social media has fostered a false idea of what free speech is by giving people the impression that they can spew out whatever lies, theories, and abuses they like and be held harmless. The only way a social media platform could ever truly offer free speech would be by collecting and verifying users’ personal information, ensuring they are of legal age, and making them agree that they could be held civilly and possibly criminally liable for damages arising from what they say. That’s the way it is in the real world, as opposed to social media’s alternative reality of made up names, anonymous email addresses, and zero accountability.

    1. Agreed.

  42. Remember when the internet was going to save us?

    1. Strangely, one of the things the internet promised was that ‘every man’s voice could be heard.’
      Apparently some don’t like what ‘every man’ said.

  43. For those who missed it:

    Ken Shultz
    January 10 at 11.14AM
    “…We often think Tony, Shrike, and ChemJeff are being dishonest–especially when they don’t seem to learn anything from having their arguments shredded and smeared in their faces everyday for years. But the fact that they don’t seem to learn anything–knowledge wise or in terms of critical thinking–may be consistent with the hypothesis that they’re just not that bright. And we shouldn’t necessarily assume that Binion, Boehm, or Britschgi are fundamentally different from them.
    Maybe the reason they try to make us feel is because they’re incapable of making us think. It is beyond their capabilities…”

    We are not dealing with reasoned disagreements from lefty shits like that; we are dealing with those who have conceptual limits such that separating fact from fantasy is not within their capabilities.
    These are not dishonest people; these are people incapable of discerning fact from fantasy.
    Simply, they are too stupid to understand the concept of dishonesty.

    1. We are not supposed to discriminate against the mentally handicapped.

    2. The remarkable thing about the current era, and the communications it enables, is that people like them will turn around and accuse you of exactly their own misrepresentations, fallacies and projections. It really is amazing.

  44. I’ve fallen back to tumblr and blogger, not a perfect solution but I like it’s more “take it or leave it” feeling…

    1. Long form articles are better anyway. Twitter having hard limits I think is an inherent flaw in its model that leads to it being a shit show. It pushes towards being glib.

      1. Twitter, by design, is about instant gratification. It is about the dumbest place to argue about anything where rational thought would be preferred.

  45. Thanks, Reason I was worried your byline meant I might have to think on my own. I’m glad you’re here to tell me how to respond.

  46. Of course this is all ignoring the important point, that you’re complaining about principles, when principles aren’t on the table right now. Trumpists made it about power and power alone.

    They had every right to express their bizarre and hateful worldview. They had every right to advocate for an orange game show host to be president. Those problems are not ones that our system of government is supposed to solve. Those are problems for public education and libraries.

    They didn’t have a right to storm the Capitol and attempt to overthrow an election. We all agree on that point. But they didn’t lack that right because of any principle. They lacked it because men with guns will shoot their dimply redneck asses if they go up against them, in self-defense. Stupid force, meet immovable object.

    Anyone who wants to reduce government’s power to do its most basic job is someone who wants those goons to take over, period.

    1. It’s you who are attempting to take principles “off the table”.

      1. I’m just defending the rule of law. What are you doing?

        Trying to save nonexistent children from invisible pizza rapists? Was that it?

  47. I just got paid $7500 working off my computer this month. And if you think that’s cool, my divorced friend has twin toddlers and made over $8k her first month. It feels so good making so much money when other people have to work for so much less Read More.

  48. You had the constitution which specifically guarantees free speech.

    You had logic which demonstrates how free speech is required for any democracy.

    But you had to be hit on the head with a censored president to realize that we carry our rights into private property.

  49. 2021 is all about bring something good to life becoming a volunteer can really bring some good changes in life. There are several good volunteer programs in india joining one can be one of the good deeds.

  50. Censorship…if it just saves OnE LiFe.

  51. The IRS has clear (not necessarily fair) guidelines about the delineation between a contractor and an employee. Clear and enforced guidelines about Section 230 boundaries would help.
    If a post is not illegal or directly encourage an illegal act it should not be censored or pushed down the feed.
    Because shadow banning is a huge problem as well on Facebook.
    CNN to the top, Breitbart to the bottom, and users have no real choice of electing to see posts in chronological order because that setting is not persistent

    1. Government should help consumers enforce TOS rules. And the various internet sites should be required to post their TOS w/r/t remaining on the site very conspicuously, in support of transparency. The TOS should be required to follow the same standards as any employment contract w/r/t discrimination, i.e. no discrimination w/r/t race, religion, sex, disability, political pursuasion, etc., because essentially the users are employees whose activities are being monetized by the site, just as your time is monetized by any other employer.

  52. >>>>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.<<<<<

    end of discussion

  53. The president of the United States is being denied his 1a rights in violation of the constitution , in an act of sedition, by those he is accusing of rigging the election.

    Those of you who think private media property rights allow the sitting president to be censored must think either:

    1. To be heard the president must say what private media owners want.

    Or

    2. A fully taxpayer funded government news public broadcasting and social media network is required.

    Which is it for you, 1 or 2? The president needs to address the population.

    When speech is business it must be free. If you don’t support free speech, get out of the business or move to communist China.

    Business cannot alienate an inalienable right.

    I can’t wait for this to go to court.

    1. Do you want to earn cash online from your living room, easily work with a laptop for a few hours a day, earn 550-650 euros a day and get paid every week by deciding on your working hours? it is all true and completely changed my life. Then try this. Read More.

  54. There is a very interesting supreme court case that deals with the rights of a company that owns a town square to limit speech. Marsh vs Alabama. You should hear quite a bit about this in the near future. If not I will wonder why. The ruling was that a company that owned a company town could not limit speech in that town. Here is a link to the ruling https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/326/501

    1. “ The more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it.”

      In other words, we carry our rights onto private property.

  55. It’s not too hard to imagine a company which is facing antitrust lawsuits, currying favor from an administration by harassing and shutting down the opposition’s communications. Or conversely, an administration quietly letting Twitter know it will drop or modify a lawsuit if it de-platforms certain outlets.

    That liberals are actively cheering this is disgusting.

  56. The author seems to suggest that commenters be required to dox (accurately identify) themselves.
    This is wrong. (Available) anonymity is essential to freedom of speech. It was used extensively, for example, by authors of the Federalist Papers.

  57. Let’s hope the social media will be used for the good in 2021

    -Maria
    Certificate Attestation Agent in Dubai

    1. Insanity is defined as doing the same thing hoping for different results.

  58. They donate heavily to democrats and the individuals and news sites they have blocked have all been republicans. And now they have done it in concert with each other.
    Naïve to think this is the choice of any one company alone with no government connection.

  59. “But what if the network power of a handful of Silicon Valley giants is so great that there’s nowhere for the evicted to turn?”

    You have to go one step further and realize they’re all colluding to actively destroy all the other places the evicted could turn to. I know it’s not the most libertarian thing to say, but these trusts have to be busted. These platforms assist with networking political violence for approved protected classes, violate federal election law by making billions of dollars worth of in-kind contributions to the Democrat party, and can generally be described as ideological subversives who have done irreparable harm to our nation.

    Outside of reporting illegal content to relevant authorities, “platforms” should not be able to moderate content. I’m tired of pretending that we can protect freedoms by allowing private individuals to destroy them.

  60. Just delete damn Twitter and Facebook accounts

  61. This private company fallacy is dumb. Again, censorship is bad for a free society, and the alternative to a “private” platform would be a “public”, government-controlled one. Censorship doesn’t that much to do with private/public, but with filtering opinions and people over others.

    Censorship is a threat to a free society, no matter if it happens in private or public. The only difference is that in private it can’t be directly legally punished. It still needs to be condemned by a free society. And I will oppose all censorship lovers here.

    Also interesting: leftists – who like regulation – suddenly argue in favor of free enterprise when it benefits their political cause because the industrial behemoths are on their side. If the over-regulators were honest, they would argue that PRIVATE COMPANIES should not have the overt power to significantly influence PUBLIC ELECTIONS.

  62. Terms of service. Does that mean the bakery can deny service to same sex couples? Can any business decide if you have a Biden or Trump sticker on your car to deny you service because they are of the other party? Name your criteria?

  63. 1/19/2021 Parlor is backup somewhat.
    Search Engine Results for Parlor and Parlor.com:
    Yahoo, Bing and DuckDuckGo all return a link to parlor.com, however Google does not return a link to parlor.com even if you include the entire url of “https://parler.com/”.

    I’m not a member of Parlor, Twitter, Facebook and avoid social media as mostly a waste of time. I however am deeply disturbed by the heavy handedness of the Woke Leftist Authoritarian Mob. I am not a Trump supporter (never have) nor a Biden supporter (never have).

    Biden has not even been inaugurated, however many citizens worst fears are already being realized. It appears that the Statist Democrat party has succumbed to the Woke Leftist Authoritarian Mob.

    A word of advice to companies that capitulate to the Woke Leftist Authoritarian Mob thinking that it make them immune. It does not make you immune, it only delays when you will become the target.

    1. oh, just wait till your ISP gets in the game

      no more Internet for the deplorables

      1. note Comcast just ended Norton partnership b/c their new modem will block “malicious” sites

        won’t take much effort to get Parler and the rest added to the list

  64. BHOJPURI SONG LYRICS IN HINDI – https://www.bhojpurisonglyricsinhindi.xyz/
    भोजपुरी सांग लिरिक्स इन हिन्दी ! HOLLYWOOD MOVIE STORY IN HINDI –

  65. The only rational response is to de-platform them before they have a chance to de-platform you. I know everyone thinks they will die of boredom without ‘Social Media’ there to keep them company, but that is not the case. I quit Facebook 6+ years ago and I’m just fine.

  66. lol the Right thought they could create their own institutions

    instead they just hollowed out liberal institutions, making them even more liberal

    hardly a single Republican is left anywhere in legacy media — or Big Tech

    no small voices of sanity in those rooms anymore

    right didn’t understand that they could not create alt-banking or alt-infrastructure

    Epoch Times was demonetized

    Breitbart will be gone soon

    Reason is problematic

  67. A Christian organization has been suspended from the Twitter social media platform for stating Dr. Rachel Levine’s, assistant secretary for health at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), biological sex.
    In recent weeks tech giants like Twitter, Facebook, and Google have been censuring mostly conservative voices on social media platforms, including former President Donald Trump and My Pillow CEO Mike Lindell. “You can now add Focus on the Family’s The Daily Citizen to the list,” Jim Daly, president of the organization, wrote in a blog last week.

Please to post comments