Social Media

Facebook's Oversight Board Was Right To Ban Trump

It's a working model for non-state governance in cyberspace that is vastly preferable to government control of social media.

|

HD Download

When Facebook's independent Oversight Board recently upheld the social media platform's ban on former President Donald Trump, the decision drew mostly negative reviews, with press outlets calling it "little more than judicial theater" or a "distraction" from more serious issues raised by Big Tech.

The Oversight Board comprises 20 individuals with backgrounds in tech, law, politics, and free speech activism. It's funded by an irrevocable trust set up by Facebook and has a legally binding final say over suspensions.

Its critics are wrong in at least two major ways.

First, the board made the right call in this case. It agreed that by its own rules, Facebook was justified in shutting down Trump after he twice posted praise of violent rioters even as they raised hell in the Capitol. It also correctly found that Facebook violated its terms of service by suspending Trump indefinitely. The board has given Mark Zuckerberg and company up to six months to render a final decision on the former president.

Second, and more importantly, the board is a serious model for non-state governance in cyberspace. It's far from perfect, but it's preferable to rules being forced on the service by politicians. Only up and running since the start of this year, the board has already been twice as likely to overturn Facebook's decisions as it is to uphold them, a strong show of accountability and seriousness of purpose.

In one case, the board restored images of naked breasts in a post about cancer that had been removed by an automated system. The board chastised the platform for making the decision without "proper human oversight." In another, Facebook had removed a post that inaccurately quoted Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels and implicitly compared him to Trump. Because Goebbels is on a list of prohibited people, the site took down the post even though it was intended as critical of both the Nazi and Trump. "Any rules which restrict freedom of expression must be clear, precise and publicly accessible," reads the decision, which also faulted Facebook for failing to inform the user why his post was originally taken down.

"I think there is actually a bit of a libertarian paradox here," John Samples, a vice president at the Cato Institute and a member of the Oversight Board, tells Reason in an interview. On the one hand, he says, there's an interest in no content moderation and leaving all decisions of what's on Facebook (or any other site) to end users who can control what they engage via filters and other tools. On the other hand, social media platforms are corporations that are trying to maximize shareholder value and the number of users by creating particular types of environments. He says that a private company moderating content on its platform is fully in keeping with libertarian principles. 

Calls to take away the rights of platforms to police their own sites are growing across the political spectrum. Republicans in Florida are trying to restrict social media platforms from banning users while Democrats in Colorado are pushing bans on hate speech. Progressives like Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) and conservatives like Sen. Josh Hawley (R–Mo.) talk about treating social media platforms as common carriers, akin to telephone companies, that would be tightly regulated by the government.

Samples argued in a 2019 policy analysis that government regulation of social media is likely "unconstitutional" because it violates "the individual's right to free speech." While he believes that content moderation is inevitable because platforms want to create a particular sort of community, he also stresses it's really hard to do consistently at scale. Facebook, he says, can't and shouldn't be all things to all people, and that the best outcomes will always come from having a variety of different platforms doing a lot of different things in a lot of different ways so that people can pick and choose among alternatives.

"You don't want one set of rules for the entire world necessarily, but you also need different platforms, different kinds of entities. I would like to see difference rather than sameness," Samples says.

Arguments for government regulation may well carry the day. If they do, we'll all be more limited in not just what we'll be able to say but where we can say it.

Produced by Noor Greene; written and narrated by Nick Gillespie; audio by Ian Keyser; additional graphics by Paul Detrick.

Photos: Photo 43805645 © Dolphfyn | Dreamstime.com, ID 124963884 © Mohamed Ahmed Soliman | Dreamstime.com, ID 29659925© Photographer London| Dreamstime.com, ID 179599250 © Frédéric Legrand | Dreamstime.com, Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call/Newscom, Joel Marklund/ZUMA Press/Newscom, Lev Radin/ZUMA Press/Newscom, Jeremy Hogan/Polaris/Newscom, Toby Melville /Reuters/Newscom, Richard B. Levine/Newscom, Lev Radin/Pacific Press/Newscom, Douliery Olivier/ABACA/Newscom, Abaca Press/Douliery, Olivier/Abaca/Sipa USA/Newscom, Graeme Jennings—Pool Via Cnp/ZUMA Press/Newscom, PoolCNP/Pool via CNP/INSTARimages/Cover Images/Newscom; Niall Carson/ZUMA Press/Newscom

NEXT: Will the Spike in Murder and Violence Undermine Criminal Justice Reform?

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. Ah, so praising violent acts should result in being banned? So noted. I’ll be expecting this policy to be consistently applied…
    …stop laughing! Of course that’s what they’ll do, right?

    1. Nick Gillespie looks like the bad guy from No Country for Old Men.

      1. Less charismatic

        1. Worse haircut.

          1. 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 DDD 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. Posting bail money for Blue city (but I repeat myself) rioters is not promoting violence? Nick is an idiot.

    3. When did Trump praise violent acts?

  2. PRIVATE COMPANY THEY CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT as long as it agrees with the leftist agenda, otherwise—cue the pitchforks!

    1. When are lolberts going to realize that these “private” companies (mega monopolies) who receive dark funds from the federal government in the form of contracts and subsidies and somehow always espouse the same viewpoints as the neoliberal hegemony are actually doing the government’s bidding? Do people here really believe that facebook would be allowed to ban Nancy Pelosi?

      1. That’s the joke. There’s really no functional distinction between public and private entities. Private entities simply provide cover to allow government to do an end run around legal restrictions. They do the things for government that government can’t legally do themselves. Applying a restriction to government that can’t likewise be applied to the private sector is an exercise in futility.

      2. It’s worse than that. Section 230 changes can open them to lawsuits, crushing their stock prices by tens of billions or more.

        So when politicians are lining up, screaming “censor hate speech, and you should start with the harrassing tweets of our political opponents”, no one should facetiously think this is a free choice by facebook, twitter, and the rest.

        This is exactly why the First Amendment was created, to keep government’s hands off speech, and specifically, to stop those in power from using their government power to silencr opponents.

        They’re trying to hide behind this “dangerous” speech incident, but that’s just goalpost shifting. It will return to what it was all last year: censor our harrassing opponents.

    2. Again, it doesn’t even matter if this private company is really associated with the Govt or not. It merely matters if they are so powerful that they can emulate government-like power and use it against freedom (1A hostility and so on). It’s only traditionally the case that governments were able to control that much. But this has changed. Libertarians need to wake up to the private company fallacy that leftists have figured out works really well to make them shut up. Socially nudged and controlled speech on this level is just ‘new’.

      1. It’s not a bug, it’s a feature. Libertarians and communists are two sides of the same side. Both ideologies rely on hyperinidividualism and social atomization to neutralize all competing institutions. For communists, it’s the state and for libertarians it’s the market.

        1. There is some kind of market dogmatism going on, and the excessive degrees of power in the hand of private companies should really make libertarians reconsider.

          I think I might be a flavor of “libertarian” that can reconcile this though. I just have to say “I like freedom for individuals” and whenever someone or something has enough power to restrict this for me or anyone else, I have reason to question and possibly oppose it. In this framework it doesn’t matter if the power is private or public. I don’t know what you would call me though. Big “L”, or small “l” or other.

          1. The flavor you’re looking for is “localism”. The problem is if said localism still dogmatically adheres to enlightenment principles espoused by classical liberalism, it will fail. Aristocracy and hierarchy are more stable when implemented at the local level. Primary purpose of aristocracy will be to protect the locality and ensure the rights and freedoms of those within the locality.

            1. I guess I have to read more about localism when I have time. Thanks for that.

              Maybe all it takes is downscaling government and quasi-government powers just a little so that a ‘social’ network can’t tip the election scale anymore.

              I mean, this system is only so vulnerable to marginal manipulation because we have an almost clean 50/50 split. So somethings not right to begin with.

              1. Joe Norman (@normonomics on twitter) is pretty good at communicating localism. The problem as he defines it is scale.

                To your 50% point, democracy fails the moment the elites realize that the consent of the majority can be manufactured.

                1. @normonics ***

                2. Thanks again, will check him out.

          2. So you believe Facebook should have no freedom. How libertarian!

      2. Start your own site if you don’t like Facebook’s rules.

    3. The motte Reason is hiding behind is that a private company should be able to make these decisions for themselves. Fine. We’ll just put the argument over whether or not Facebook is truly private to one side.

      The Bailey is that this private company was actually right to do this in this specific instance because it’s better that they do then a government agency inevitably do it for them. Wrong. I can be against government agencies regulating private companies AND against the privatization of censorship, cancel culture, and social media companies openly colluding to create a Puritan village for the rest of us.

  3. lol you’re still with this bullshit?

  4. Wow. Astonishing for one article to get so much wrong. About the only thing here that I agree with is that the Facebook Oversight Board model is less bad than the political-enforced rules being bandied about by totalitarians on both sides of the aisle.

    1. About the only thing here that I agree with is that the Facebook Oversight Board model is less bad than the political-enforced rules being bandied about by totalitarians on both sides of the aisle.

      Even then, I’d add a ‘for now’ or ‘so far’. It’s dead simple to imagine a situation where Facebook’s competition or social activists take control of the oversight board (assuming any board is pristine to begin with) and force Facebook to serve people to serve it doesn’t want to or enforce rules against undesirables based on some (unstated) social imperative. Chicago is currently on its fourth or fifth iteration of independent police review boards in a similar arrangement.

      As I indicated below, either you publish everything or you moderate. Whether you moderate up front, internally, or on the backend via review boards, you still moderate and, moderation being a positive action, makes someone responsible for the moderation. The continued cat-and-mouse game of “We don’t moderate and if we did moderate, we’re not responsible for it.” is plain old moronic.

      1. I hear this a LOT: Either you’re a publisher, or an impartial conduit of posts; you can NOT be both! Well, this is an authoritarian power-pig stance, no matter if you persuade 51% or 97% of your fellow authoritarians, or not! NO inflexible law of physics, chemistry, or yada-yada prohibits Section 230 to straddle the middle!

        Let me draw an analogy to this black-and-white empty-headedness: Because I (and 51% of the voters) say that your teeth bacteria are either utterly evil, or are pure-white good and have souls, you must either: ‘1) Nuke your mouth once a day with ionizing radiation, or ‘2) you may brush your teeth, but if you do, you MUST find a good home for EVERY bacteria that you put out on the streets!

        Colgate MUST decide, are they ruthless killers of ALL mouth bacteria, or are they enablers of goodness and kindness for good, soul-bearing bacteria! They may NOT straddle the middle, as enablers of free-will choices of the consumers, because I, and 51% or more of the voters, have said so!

        Alternately, it can NOT, and dare NOT, be both a dessert topping, AND a floor wax… Because I said so!

        Power-pig authoritarians all of ye!

        1. NO inflexible law of physics, chemistry, or yada-yada prohibits Section 230 to straddle the middle!

          Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

          1. And so that allows you to call upon Government Almighty to take over the property rights of others? For YOUR purposes? Sounds like Marxism to me!

            And you want to tear down Section 230… So that you can, for example, punish Reason.com… For posting MY comments? Punish “A” for the doings of “B”? This shows as much understanding for “justice”, as Stalin showed for “private property rights”!

            1. And you want to tear down Section 230… So that you can, for example, punish Reason.com… For posting MY comments?

              I quoted the 1A in good faith. Where’s your cite?

              1. You are a power-lusting asshole who wants to take over PRIVATE PROPERTY in the name of the 1A! Deny it!?!

                Your history of posts clearly shows it! THAT is my “cite”!

                1. I see you still don’t understand what repealing 230 would actually mean.

                  Last time I checked, Reason doesn’t moderate their comments, unless you post something that is unequivocally illegal, so no, no one would be trying to punish Reason for your asinine copypasta bullshit.

                  1. Section 230 protects Reason from being sued for MY comments, period, ignorant asshole! And you power pigs lust after tearing down Section 230, so that you can punish “Party A” for the doings of “Party B”! If that is NOT what you want to do, then WHY do you lust after killing Section 230?

                    https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act.shtml

          2. You either love animals, or you eat meat… You can NOT do both! All pet owners who eat meat? Their pets will be slaughtered and their pet-meat distributed to the poor! Because I and 51% of the voters said so! And because we are power pigs, and LOOOOOVE to punish people!

    2. “…Facebook Oversight Board model is less bad than the political-enforced rules …”

      Now that is a ringing endorsement. If by “less bad” you mean badged armed thugs won’t track you down then I agree. Beyond that it is no less bad. FFS they are serving a political function.

      Fakebook is a public utility as far as I’m concerned. That’s right. Want be the only dickhead on the block after buying all of the competition in the public square then it easily becomes a utility and no longer gets 230 protections.

      And what mad said too.

      1. OPEN QUESTIONS FOR ALL ENEMIES OF SECTION 230

        The day after tomorrow, you get a jury summons. You will be asked to rule in the following case: A poster posted the following to social media: “Government Almighty LOVES US ALL, FAR more than we can EVER know!”

        This attracted protests from liberals, who thought that they may have detected hints of sarcasm, which was hurtful, and invalidated the personhoods of a few Sensitive Souls. It ALSO attracted protests from conservatives, who were miffed that this was a PARTIAL truth only (thereby being at least partially a lie), with the REAL, full TRUTH AND ONLY THE TRUTH being, “Government Almighty of Der TrumpfenFuhrer ONLY, LOVES US ALL, FAR more than we can EVER know! Thou shalt have NO Government Almighty without Der TrumpfenFuhrer, for Our TrumpfenFuhrer is a jealous Government Almighty!”

        Ministry of Truth, and Ministry of Hurt Baby Feelings, officials were consulted. Now there are charges!

        QUESTIONS FOR YOU THE JUROR:

        “Government Almighty LOVES US ALL”, true or false?

        “Government Almighty LOVES US ALL”, hurtful sarcasm or not?

        Will you be utterly delighted to serve on this jury? Keep in mind that OJ Simpson got an 11-month criminal trial! And a 4-month civil trial!

        1. It’s not about goverment vs. private, it is about ANY ENTITY with a degree of power that is sufficient to take freedom away. This can be a private entity as well. People are waking up this fallacy you keep promoting. Your property rights don’t cover any power sufficient to nudge 1st amendment matters. This will be a rough pill to swallow.

          1. There is no inherent “freedom” to be on Facebook.

          2. The 1A only applies to government.

      2. It’s not a utility, libtard.

      3. Some people on the right only believe in property rights if liberals are the ones negatively impacted. If a website like Facebook bans conservatives, then property rights go out the window.

    3. Flogging isn’t as bad as hanging, either. Doesn’t mean you’d want either.

      That a nominal ‘libertarian’ is endorsing FB’s political censorship, not just as reluctantly permissible, but desirable, underscores what a joke Reason’s claim to be a libertarian publication is these days.

      1. Sad huh. I am considering retreating completely and going way more about my offline life. Really I don’t even wanna give them my reads and marginal ad revenue anymore.

      2. Right to association, property rights.

  5. Tlaib calling for the abolition of Israel – something probably likely to cause more deaths than a Capitol invasion – is really OK? “Palestine free from the river to the sea” means “kill the Jews.”
    But that’s fine, because it is a cause approved of the Facebook censors.

    1. Just Google from Palestine to the sea and look at Facebook results. All over their platform.

    2. Avowedly antisemitic terrorist organizations that are avowedly hostile to the US get to keep their facebook pages.

  6. First, the board made the right call in this case. It agreed that by its own rules, Facebook was justified in shutting down Trump after he twice posted praise of violent rioters even as they raised hell in the Capitol. It also correctly found that Facebook violated its terms of service by suspending Trump indefinitely. The board has given Mark Zuckerberg and company up to six months to render a final decision on the former president.

    This whole paragraph says your headline is wrong. Facebook violated their own terms.

    Likewise, why are you supporting arbitrary application of rules? 2 posts supporting a protest??? Do you need the blm support from democrats also year?

    Libertarians should never defend censorship.

    1. The old saw about the solution to bad speech is more speech has certainly fallen by the wayside in the defense of the platforms to do whatever they want without liability for their decisions.

      1. Including government collusion.

    2. It’s not really censorship unless it’s by government.

  7. “I think there is actually a bit of a libertarian paradox here,” John Samples, a vice president at the Cato Institute and a member of the Oversight Board, tells Reason in an interview. On the one hand, he says, there’s an interest in no content moderation and leaving all decisions of what’s on Facebook (or any other site) to end users who can control what they engage via filters and other tools. On the other hand, social media platforms are corporations that are trying to maximize shareholder value and the number of users by creating particular types of environments.

    Seems like Britschgi isn’t the only retard at Reason/Cato who doesn’t understand the distinction between a paradox and a plain contradiction. “Anybody who wants to get out of combat duty isn’t really crazy.” is a paradox. “Whether you moderate up front or on the back end via mock jury, be responsible for your moderation. If you aren’t responsible for your own actions, others will be.” is not a paradox.

    1. And completely missing is support for arbitrary application of their rules. Cato is for that for some reason.

      1. “Cato is for that for some reason”.

        “You tell me whar a man gits his corn pone, en I’ll tell you what his ‘pinions is.”
        …Mark Twain, quoting a boyhood friend.

    2. A magazine insisting that S230 as a requisite for the internet to exist trumpeting private, independent oversight that is largely free from S230 restrictions/protections is a paradox.

      1. There is also the ignoring that S230 protection is supposed to be in the face of “good faith” moderation, not whatever the strikes the fancy of the ownership in the moment.

        1. Exceptional legal protection for good faith action (under mens rea and a presumption of innocense no less) is indeed a paradox.

  8. First, the board made the right call in this case.

    No it didn’t. Oh, and we’ll just ignore “right” and “wrong” in relation to a private company that can do whatever it wants, even in contradiction of its own “rules” because we’re all friends here. For instance, had you been paying any attention to the Big Tech miasma, they reserve the right to change their rules at any time, including retroactively, with little or no notice. So the “rules” are nothing more than a fig leaf.

    Moving on.

    It agreed that by its own rules, Facebook was justified in shutting down Trump after he twice posted praise of violent rioters even as they raised hell in the Capitol.

    I notice you don’t link to the tweet.

    But lets for a moment, pretend he did. (he didn’t, but let’s just pretend). By Facebook’s “own rules” that we seem to now suddenly hold in high regard and even use the term “legal” in relation to them, pretty much 90% of the Democratic party and the entire network of CNN, including but not limited to its individual commentators would have been banned from Facebook as well… if we’re giving such deference to Facebook’s so-called “rules”.

    Moving on.

    Second, and more importantly, the board is a serious model for non-state governance in cyberspace.

    It is not a serious model. It’s a model which is laughable at best. At best. It’s nothing more than a theatrical agency, only employed in the most high-profile cases, created by a company that seriously believes it can “fact check” its way to an ultimate truth in every possible utterance made on their platform.

    Shit, I’m realizing the required response to this shit is going to be longer than the article.

    1. In one case, the board restored images of naked breasts in a post about cancer that had been removed by an automated system.

      If this is an example of “the board” overruling facebook, I’m now officially more underwhelmed than I was a few minutes ago. The board made the most basic common-sense decision over an utterly retarded AI algorithm that should have never been given “moderation power” to begin with. It should only be employed as a tool to flag content, which should then later be reviewed by a human Facebook moderator who lives and works in Silicon Valley and… oh… well, I see the folly of that too. Never mind. The algorithm is probably about as reliable.

    2. He says that a private company moderating content on its platform is fully in keeping with libertarian principles.

      It’s in keeping with libertarian free-market principles in that you can do what you want with your property. Facebook’s actions are almost entirely outside of libertarian principles in regards to the culture of liberty. Facebook can be within its legal rights as a corporation, but still be the most odious institution on the planet, run by odious little people with odious ideas.

      1. Facebook can’t do with their property what they want, that’s the problem. Government had been forcing them to comply on numerous issues.

        They banned Trump because he lost the election and they anticipated that the new people in charge wanted Trump banned.

        1. Or the new people in charge let them know that they wanted Trump banned. How many former Facebook employees are working in Joke Biden’s administration today?

      2. If you ignore principles of contract, sure. These companies are violating terms of their agreements.

        1. From the always-there top-intro to the comments at Reason.com:
          “We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time.”

          Yet JesseSPAZ (and other enemies of freedom of speech, and enemies of Section 230) will find invisible or implied contractual rights! After JesseSPAZ reads (or can read if JesseSPAZ will bother to do so) this “contract”, for JesseSPAZ’s right to post comments FOR FREE, JesseSPAZ will go and run crying to Government Almighty to tear down Section 230, and invent and insert NEW clauses, infringing on the property rights of Reason.com! If JesseSPAZ (or others, to include “false flag” leftists) post SO MUCH deeply offensive racist CRAP, for example, that advertisers will stop buying advertisements on Reason.com? Or buyers of Reason Magazine BOYCOTT the magazine? JesseSPAZ will STILL want to go running and crying to Government Almighty to FORCE Reason.com to post the crap-writings of JesseSPAZ!!!

          Some gratitude, JesseSPAZ, for what Reason.com does for you for FREE!!! When a neighbor lends you tools (for FREE), which you never return, or return broken… And the neighbor, in turn, STOPS lending you tools, do you find “invisible contractual clauses”, and run crying to Government Almighty to FORCE your neighbor to lend you MORE tools? What are the limits to your greed and evil, to your unquenchable thirst, JesseSPAZ?

          This calls for a moderate-length analogy.

          I lend you a tool, or some money… Largely out of the goodness of my heart… No profit to me! The spoken or unspoken, written or unwritten, agreement (“contract”) is, you pay me back, at a decently high priority, or give me a tool back, in the same condition that I lent it to you.
          (I have had the following types of things happen to me…) Never get paid back, or borrower goes on fancy vacation and brags about it on FaceBook, instead of paying me back… Never returns the tool… Returns the tool broken… Makes me feel like a nagging asshole, to be repeatedly asking for MY money and-or tool(s) back. At the logical extreme (haven’t had this one happen to me, YET!) they go running and crying to Government Almighty, and threaten to SUE me, if I break some invisible (or made-up) contract provision, whereby they INSIST that I CONTINUE to lend them more money or tools, despite their bad behavior!
          This kind of asshole behavior “erodes social capital”, or trust. It is NOT the way to “love one’s neighbors”! I hardly ever lend out money or tools any more… Because of the human “tools” that I have had to deal with here!
          This is a straight-forward analogy to abusing the “social trust” of web sites who allow us to post on their web sites for FREE! And then we make made-up, or invisible-ink, “contract clauses” that aren’t there! And lust after SUING them! An abuse of “social capital”! If you’re not enough of an asshole to do this to your friend or your neighbor, WHY would you do it to (for example) Reason.com?
          Oh, Reason.com is “impure of motives”, you might argue, because your comments might help VERY slightly, to attract you and others to their web site, and help them to sell advertising! Well, whoop-de-do! You could question my motives in lending you money or tools as well! I was just trying to “enhance my social reputation” of being a good dude or dudette, right? So that gives you license to shit on me, and break REAL contracts, NOT imaginary ones?!
          At the end of the day, these kinds of behavior erode social trust, or social capital! It is the way of assholes, NOT of decent folks!

          1. Unsuccessful. Whiny. Completely out of touch. But expects anyone to see their wisdom. lol you are laughable.

            I just have to repeat, property rights don’t cover power over major main stream discourse. Private vs. public is beside the point. ‘So powerful that it can hurt freedom’ is what libertarians are concerned with.

            (sorry if this doesn’t match your comment, I didn’t read it. Because your comments rarely match what you respond to. So I felt free.)

            1. You and like-minded folks want to be petty tyrants and take over other peoples’ property, plain and simple!

              At the end of the day, these kinds of behavior erode social trust, or social capital! It is the way of assholes, NOT of decent folks!

              1. Wow, I really managed to reduce you to repetitive, dogmatic drivel.

                I just said I think this power shouldn’t exist. You accuse me of being in favor of it nonetheless. I don’t care about your property. And you don’t have any degrees of power I care about either, because you are an unsuccessful misfire of a person. I care about quasi-government degrees of power that no libertarians should wish to be in anyones central hands.

                Looks like you might really be a paid troll actually.

                1. “I don’t care about your property.”

                  A tiny bit of honesty pokes out! You care NOTHING for the property or the rights of ANY others, because you are an evil, power-grabbing asshole!

                  The first step towards healing your evil is to recognize it for what it is. Start here: M. Scott Peck, The People of the Lie,
                  https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0684848597/reasonmagazinea-20/
                  People who are evil attack others instead of facing their own failures. Peck demonstrates the havoc these “people of the lie” work in the lives of those around them.

                  1. LMAO Evil, power grabbing asshole. Wow, do you have any parents left? 😀

                    You sound like a woke portlander.

                    “People who are evil attack others instead of facing their own failures.”

                    Do you see the irony in you quoting that? 😀

                    LOL you are such a failure, it’s remarkable, you must have actively worked on becoming so low.

                    Again, nobody cares about what little property you have, you are unimportant. What’s important are quasi-government degrees of power in the hands of just a few. That needs to be limited. Libertarians who understand the law is meant to protect freedom, will see that it doesn’t matter in what sector this power is concentrated.

                    SCOTUS is coming for you. Gonna be fun. Down your throat, as they say. 😀

                    1. Uh huh, sure. Lol.

                    2. According to your logic, if I grow a successful company, I should lose some of my property rights. FAKE LIBERTARIAN.

            2. Sarcasmic is just drunk again so he switched to his sock. He thought the mute button would let him “win” but has realized people are still laughing at him.

              1. Do you recall the awesome enchanter named “Tim”, in “Monty Python and the Search for the Holy Grail”? The one who could “summon fire without flint or tinder”? Well, you remind me of Tim… You are an enchanter who can summon persuasion without facts or logic!

                So I discussed your awesome talents with some dear personal friends on the Reason staff… Accordingly…

                Reason staff has asked me to convey the following message to you:

                Hi Fantastically Talented Author:

                Obviously, you are a silver-tongued orator, and you also know how to translate your spectacular talents to the written word! We at Reason have need for writers like you, who have near-magical persuasive powers, without having to write at great, tedious length, or resorting to boring facts and citations.

                At Reason, we pay above-market-band salaries to permanent staff, or above-market-band per-word-based fees to freelancers, at your choice. To both permanent staff, and to free-lancers, we provide excellent health, dental, and vision benefits. We also provide FREE unlimited access to nubile young groupies, although we do firmly stipulate that persuasion, not coercion, MUST be applied when taking advantage of said nubile young groupies.

                Please send your resume, and another sample of your writings, along with your salary or fee demands, to ReasonNeedsBrilliantlyPersuasiveWriters@Reason.com .

                Thank You! -Reason Staff

              2. lol yea. Well that button only causes anyone who would otherwise contradict him to mute themselves, because then we don’t engage him anymore. He was hoping to get a bunch of free self-mutes. Bummer for him.

                #NoSafeSpacesForSqrltards

    3. “You don’t want one set of rules for the entire world necessarily, but you also need different platforms, different kinds of entities. I would like to see difference rather than sameness,” Samples says.

      Sameness is what you’ve got, and there’s irrefutable proof of that. The microsecond a platform arises that allows content that isn’t nominally allowed on Facebook, either by action or implication, that platform is shut down by the rest of the Silicon Valley oligarchy.

      Or you think it’s just crazy wisdom-of-crowds coincidence that a Trump ban happens across pretty much every platform within 24 hours.

      1. This. Collusion is not a libertarian free market principle and is ignored by this website.

        1. Exactly. Private companies turning into the tyrant is logically absolutely possible. A government is not required here. Just any entity so powerful that they can nudge a society to become less free. I think the era where only governments were able to do this is over.

        2. Though of course such entities preferably receive their directives from governments. Not exclusively though, because these economic giants that aren’t just profit-oriented anymore have clear power to influence the actions of governments. This feedback goes both ways now. Tell me about separation of powers. It’s pretty fucked up. And “muh private company!!!” is just a distraction. I feel like many of them are missing the point on purpose.

          1. Hey whining crybaby… I pay (PAY! With MY money! I OWN!) for my own web site at Go-Daddy. I say some VERY sarcastic and un-politically-correct, intolerant things about cults like Scientology there (and Government Almighty as well). I am QUITE sure that a LOT of “tolerant” liberal-type folks at Google etc. would NOT be happy with the types of things I wrote! Yet, if you do a search-string “Scienfoology”, Google will take you STRAIGHT to MY web site, top hit! #1!

            https://www.google.com/search?q=scienfoology&nfpr=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjPzZqf0dXsAhUCT6wKHez9DNwQvgUoAXoECDEQKg&biw=1920&bih=941

            Your whining and crying is (just about ) UTTERLY without basis!

            WHERE is your respect for property rights?! I learned to respect the property rights of others, before I was in the 1st grade! Didn’t your Momma raise you right?

            And “muh private company!!!” is just a distraction. ”

            A distraction, yes, when trotted forth snarkily by authoritarians who want to TAKE OVER THE PROPERTY OF OTHERS using Government Almighty powers! You are NOT fooling me!

            1. Thank you for proving my point.

              The point is, your unsuccessful website is, if anything, approved opposition and you are a useful idiot. I won’t click anything, because your comment reveals it will be drivel spewed by an unsuccessful semi-autistic slouch.

              But rest assured, your oh so oppositional thoughts have no place in the collective of social media. You are way too meaningless and they are way too powerful to give a damn whether it would be okay to suppress your thoughts.

              Again, the problem is not private sector or public. It’s just too much power in any central hand. Property rights don’t cover your power to nudge first amendment matters in your favored direction. And that is why I am VERY HAPPY it was brought up in SCOTUS. 😀 You will have to swallow that.

              1. So you refute what I write, by not reading it? Since Facebook (or XYZ) has too much power, the power needs to be re-allocated… To YOU!

                Said every power-hungry, evil authoritarian ever!

                Section 230 …
                https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act.shtml
                (Posted by Overt)

                So in Authoritarian Asshole-Land, then, the Association of Catholic Nuns Who Garden-Tend, if it sets up a chat group for discussing their hobby, should be forced to accept pro-abortion, anti-Catholic-nuns rants, on their internet forum? What happened to private property rights, and the right to freely associate, or not associate?

                1. Power needs to be re-allocated? No, dipshit, besides the point again. It just shouldn’t exist. It shouldn’t be so massive that it can nudge 1st amendment matters or other individual freedoms in the preferred direction of a few. Law is there to restrict government. I say it’s there to restrict any entity that is too powerful. Traditionally that was governments. But we are past that now.

                  If you re-allocated it to me, first thing I would do is destroy it. It can’t be in any central hand. The sector this hand is in doesn’t matter. Companies are there for profit.

                  1. I mean they are there for profit, NOT power. Libertarians need to accept that anything too powerful can become the tyrant. Government is just the most popular flavor of that.

                    1. Wrong. Private companies have nowhere near the power government’s do, and they cannot take away your freedom. There is no “freedom” to be on someone else’s property.

                      You want to use the power of big government to give you affirmative action on Facebook’s property. FAKE LIBERTARIAN.

                    2. You cannot be a libertarian AND a populist.

                  2. “(Power) just shouldn’t exist.”

                    Free-will-driven power has existed ever since one animal bit another (ever since “meat tastes good” was discovered).

                    What planet are you from? I don’t think that arguing with you makes any sense, as utterly out of touch with reality as you obviously are!

                    1. No, it’s cooperative competence that made social groups thrive, not top-down power plays. That you don’t know the difference is telling.

                      You might have heard this: If a big rat and a small rat play and wrestle, the big rat needs to let the small rat win about 30% of the time so the small rat won’t stop engaging. Humans have similar patterns of interaction.

                      Again, you must be dumb. Can’t distinguish repressive top-down power from cooperative competence-based hierarchies. Typical woke snowflake. And just as successful in the world.

                    2. You resent the hell out of the fact that many other people are flat-out, better, more honest people than you are, right? More “live and let live”, and WAAAY less authoritarian?
                      https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/in-love-and-war/201706/why-some-people-resent-do-gooders
                      From the conclusion to the above…
                      These findings suggest that we don’t need to downplay personal triumphs to avoid negative social consequences, as long as we make it clear that we don’t look down on others as a result.

                      SQRLSY back here now… So, I do NOT want you to feel BAD about YOU being an authoritarian asshole, and me NOT being one! PLEASE feel GOOD about you being an authoritarian asshole! You do NOT need to push me (or other REAL lovers of personal liberty) down, so that you can feel better about being an asshole! EVERYONE ADORES you for being that authoritarian asshole that you are, because, well, because you are YOU! FEEL that self-esteem, now!

                    3. Ok, revealed the woke leftism and inability to even engage with the point that the other person makes. At this point, anybody who can read sees what your problem is.

                      I said: I am in favor of cooperative competence and not repressive power from above, and like a typical woke narcissist, you just flat out ignore that and act like I am still the omnipresent offender that inhabits your brain eternally (I would feel sorry for you weren’t you so uselessly pathetic :-D)

                      I will ignore your comments from now on. You are at the very least an irredeemably narcissistic troll. Not worth engaging.

                      Just remember: Woke left degenerate weaklings are by far the most common casualties of the culture war. You are simply unsustainable. A sad misfire of a person.

                    4. 5.56 thinks that it can pussy-grab the woke leftists, and take over their property, and they will NEVER think of pussy-grabbing 5.56 right back! Just like all the other Orange-Dick-Sucking admirers of Der TrumpfenFuhrer!

                      Donald (and Trumpistas) simply cannot or will not recognize the central illusion of politics… You can pussy-grab all of the people some of the time, and you can pussy-grab some of the people all of the time, but you cannot pussy-grab all of the people all of the time! Sooner or later, karma catches up, and the others will pussy-grab you right back!

                      Even ANIMALS know these things, evil moron!

                      Study “Dunbar’s Number” as a related topic. We keep track of each other, and how each of us treat others, and act accordingly! Politically, even! See https://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/22/science/22angi.html Political Animals (Yes, Animals) By Natalie Angier “Researchers who study highly gregarious and relatively brainy species like rhesus monkeys, baboons, dolphins, sperm whales, elephants and wolves have lately uncovered evidence that the creatures engage in extraordinarily sophisticated forms of politicking, often across large and far-flung social networks.”

                    5. Sqrlsy is a fly that keeps bashing their head against the same window. They can’t grasp why they’re getting nowhere. And anyone else can see it, but they have no way to tell the fly what’s happening.

                    6. I think this person is a paid troll though so I will repeat my point:

                      It doesn’t matter where excessive levels of power are concentrated (private or public hand), it only matters if this power is sufficiently large so that it can be used to restrict individual freedom on a broad scale. Private companies can hold such power.

                  3. “Private companies can hold such power.”

                    Name me such a company, with the power to tax, kill, imprison, bomb, torture, and maim. With qualified immunity, ideally. You are barking up the wrong tree, power-luster! You want to collect Government Almighty power for YOUR purposes, if you are honest! Evil power pig!

                    1. Check out tolerated anti-semitic content and selective censorship on social media. Killing, imprisoning, bombing and so on starts with the thoughts and the words. Man, you haven’t learned anything from Hitler and others. Controlling speech is vitally important for totalitarians. You need a program before you can take action. Social loves to prime and prepare that in favor of a certain direction.

                      You are the defender of evil power pigs if anything.

                    2. Edit: Social media loves to prime and prepare people in favor of a certain direction.

                      Also, Social media likely was the keystone in the small 0.2% margin in the GA Senate elections.

                      Guess what? With who we have in charge now, if they decide to start a new war, social media will have done their job enabling that. Can you ever think even one step past your resentments?

                    3. Name me such a company, with the power to tax, kill, imprison, bomb, torture, and maim. With qualified immunity, ideally.

                      Already done, Blackwater. When I asked if you would support them doing such, you dodged and indicated that I secretly wanted to ban you from Reason (without citation). You did such in good faith I’m sure.

                    4. “…indicated that I secretly wanted to ban you from Reason…”

                      Citation? Other than your out-of-calibration tinfoil hat?

                    5. Name me such a company, with the power to tax, kill, imprison, bomb, torture, and maim.

                      And, lest you think Blackwater is a one off:

                      U.S. FOR-PROFIT PRIVATIZED CORRECTIONAL SERVICES
                      January 2017 – Not a full listing
                      Facility Operations
                      CoreCivic (Corrections Corp. of America)
                      The GEO Group
                      Management & Training Corp.
                      Community Education Centers
                      LaSalle Corrections
                      Emerald Companies
                      Medical / Mental Health Care
                      Corizon Health (Beecken Petty O’Keefe & Co.)
                      Centurion (Centene)
                      NaphCare, Inc.
                      Correct Care Solutions
                      Wexford Health Sources
                      Armor Corr. Health Services
                      Advanced Correctional Healthcare
                      Correctional Medical Care
                      Southern Health Partners
                      MHM (mental health)
                      Cal. Forensic Medical Group (Correctional
                      Medical Group Companies; H.I.G. Capital)
                      Southwest Correctional Medical Group
                      CFG Health Systems
                      PrimeCare Medical, Inc.
                      CorrectHealth, LLC
                      Pharmaceutical Services
                      PharmaCorr (Corizon)
                      Diamond Pharmacy Services
                      Maxor Correctional Pharmacy Services
                      Correct Rx
                      Transportation Services
                      TransCor (CCA)
                      PTS of America
                      U.S. Prisoner Transport Services
                      Black Talon Enterprises
                      GEO Transport (GEO Group)
                      In-Custody Transportation

                      Package/Commissary Services
                      Access SecurePak (Keefe)
                      Union Supply Group
                      Jack L. Marcus
                      Access
                      ABL Management
                      Bob Barker Company
                      ICS Jail Supplies
                      Food Services
                      Aramark
                      Canteen Corr. Services
                      Trinity Services Group (H.I.G. Capital)
                      ABL Management, Inc.
                      Food Services of America (Services Group of
                      America)
                      Phone/Video Visit/Email Services
                      Global Tel*Link (American Securities)
                      Securus Technologies (ABRY Partners)
                      CenturyLink
                      PayTel
                      Telmate
                      NCIC
                      Consolidated Telecom
                      ICSolutions (Keefe / H.I.G. Capital)
                      Legacy Inmate Communications
                      IWEBVisit, LLC
                      JPay (Securus)
                      HomeWAV
                      Turnkey Corrections
                      JailATM
                      Primarily Juvenile Facilities
                      G4S Youth Services (U.S. operations)
                      Youth Services International
                      Abraxas Youth & Family Services (GEO)
                      Cornerstone Programs
                      Mid-Atlantic Youth Services Corp.

                      Money Transfer Services
                      JPay (Securus)
                      Western Union
                      Access Corrections (Keefe)
                      Tech Friends, Inc.
                      Halfway Houses/Community Corrections
                      Community Education Centers
                      Hope Village (DC)
                      Correctional Alternatives, Inc. (CCA)
                      Avalon Correctional Services (CCA)
                      ComCor, Inc.
                      Correctional Management (CCA)
                      GEO Care (GEO Group)
                      Release Debit Cards
                      JPay (Securus)
                      NUMI Financial/Futura
                      JP Morgan Chase Bank
                      Release Pay/Rapid Financial Solutions
                      EZ Exit/Continental Prison Systems
                      Turnkey Corrections
                      Global Tel*Link
                      Keefe Commissary
                      Skylight Financial
                      Electronic Monitoring
                      BI, Inc. (GEO)
                      3M Electronic Monitoring, Inc.
                      ISECUREtrac Corp.
                      Satellite Tracking of People (Securus)
                      Offender Management Services
                      Probation Services
                      Sentinel Offender Services
                      Judicial Corr. Services (Correct Care Solutions)
                      Georgia Probation Services
                      CSRA Probation Services, Inc.

                      Compiled by Prison Legal News (www.prisonlegalnews.org)

                      Facility Design and Build
                      Sierra Companies
                      Hale-Mills Construction
                      Turner Construction (Hochtief)
                      Kimme & Associates, Inc.
                      Primarily Immigration Detention
                      Ahtna Corporation
                      Akai Security
                      Asset Protection and Security Services
                      Immigration Centers of America
                      Valley Metro Barbosa Group

                      And this doesn’t even touch on the likes of ADT, Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, Fusion GPS, Cambridge Analytica, Leidos Holdings, Computer Science Corp., etc., etc., etc.

                    6. Citation? Other than your out-of-calibration tinfoil hat?

                      SQRLSY One
                      May.19.2021 at 6:16 pm

                      And you want to tear down Section 230… So that you can, for example, punish Reason.com… For posting MY comments?

                    7. Remington sold me some bullets. Or a hammer, or a knife… Is Remington now part of the killer-powers of Government Almighty? Whoever I kill, with my Remington bullets (etc.)… Were killed by Government Almighty? “Logic”, good-faith dealing with FACTS, hello?!?!?

                    8. “…indicated that I secretly wanted to ban you from Reason…”

                      No, you don’t want to ban me… I never said or implied that! You MIGHT want to punish REASON.COM (not me, ’cause I have no deep pockets)! You want to punish “Party A” for the doings of “Party B”, by tearing down Section 230! And THAT shows ZERO understanding of ANYTHING related to “justice”, or respect for the free-will freedom-driven-actions of free parties!

                      TAME your raging “punishment boner”; it leads to NO good!

                    9. So that you can, for example, punish Reason.com… For posting MY comments?

                      No, you don’t want to ban me… I never said or implied that! You MIGHT want to punish REASON.COM

                      So when I provided you the cite you requested, you claim it was out of context and then further conditionalize it with a ‘MIGHT’? Most would call that dishonest or, at the very least, bad faith.

                    10. Remington sold me some bullets. Or a hammer, or a knife… Is Remington now part of the killer-powers of Government Almighty? Whoever I kill, with my Remington bullets (etc.)… Were killed by Government Almighty? “Logic”, good-faith dealing with FACTS, hello?!?!?

                      When is the last time Remington taxed anyone, or put them in jail, or “administered the death penalty”, or declared war? Or dropped bombs?

                      Citation(s) please!

                    11. When is the last time Remington taxed anyone, or put them in jail, or “administered the death penalty”, or declared war? Or dropped bombs?

                      They didn’t, you drooling moron! Neither did anyone in your stupid long list! NOT with the official sanction of Government Almighty! Neither did or does Facebook! Just HOW stupid can you get, with your bottomlessly moronic posts? How MUCH more stupid have you got left? WHEN do we reach “peak stupid”? Or is it infinite?

                    12. If you think Trump can be held responsible for what a bunch of idiots did in DC, you have to accept that social media has a lot to do with what we are seeing now.

                      Way more even, as their actions actually did have a political effect. Their cronyism needs to be curbed. They can’t remain quasi-government extensions in ideological regards.

                    13. Neither did anyone in your stupid long list! NOT with the official sanction of Government Almighty!

                      U.S. Prisoner Transport Services didn’t literally put anyone in prison? Put someone in prison without being sanctioned by the Gov’t? You’re yammering.

                    14. When is the last time Remington taxed anyone, or put them in jail, or “administered the death penalty”, or declared war? Or dropped bombs?

                      They didn’t, you drooling moron!

                      So Remington has never directly killed anyone with one of their rifles but Facebook can/has/does/will directly take down posts on their websites.

                      The thing about shifting the goalposts is that everybody can see where the kick was going before you made the shift.

                    15. “So Remington has never directly killed anyone with one of their rifles but Facebook can/has/does/will directly take down posts on their websites.”

                      Hitler killed 6 million Jews and Facebook hurt Mad.casual’s feelings, by not allowing Mad.casual to post whatever it likes, on Facebook’s web sites! So then Facebook is just like Hitler!

                    16. The person above me is incapable of nuance. Hopeless binary thinker. Either one thing belongs to one side completely or the other. FB being complicit in hurting free speech either has to equate them with literal Hitler, or it is perfectly fine what they are doing. Can only think in black and white.

                      Typical trait of narcissistic woke degenerates, borderline personalities, racial dividers on the left and other lowly SJW-material.

                    17. “U.S. Prisoner Transport Services didn’t literally put anyone in prison?”

                      U.S. Prisoner Transport Services never MADE AND ENFORCED THE DECISION to put ANYONE in jail! Else it would be false imprisonment! Just like…

                      Facebook never MADE AND ENFORCED ANY DECISION to put ANYONE in jail!

                      NEXT utterly stupid and dishonest argument?

            2. “Hey whining crybaby… I pay (PAY! With MY money! I OWN!) for my own web site at Go-Daddy. I say some VERY sarcastic and un-politically-correct, intolerant things about cults like Scientology there (and Government Almighty as well).”

              Not enough people pay attention to you to make it worth shutting you down.

              1. My stuff is posted, despite ALL of these oh-so-horrible (sarc) powers of Government Almighty. IT IS POSTED! And you whining crybabies could do the same! POST your shit! PAY FOR IT yourselves (radical concept, that), if, like Reason.com, they limit you to ONE link per post, here! Bypass it, with YOUR money!

                And THEN if someone DOES pay it attention to it, you Orange-Dick-sucking power pigs are TOTALLY on board with shutting it down, right? If it pisses off JesseBahnFuhrer or MammaBahnFuhrer, or Nardless the Nadless, Nasty NAZI? Or any of the other brainless conservaturd echo chamber, Members in Good Standing?

                What comes around, goes around, power pigs!

          2. It’s good, old fashioned fascism, except I think the big business elites are pulling more strings than they did in Mussolini’s day.

        3. “it’s just crazy wisdom-of-crowds coincidence that a Trump ban happens across pretty much every platform within 24 hours”

          This is the point. What is more remarkable is that Reason.com has already figured out the solution: Let users ban who they listen to. What a remarkable idea: Everyone gets to talk, but no one is forced to listen to Tony whining.

          1. Because an insurrection attempt is a big deal.

        4. Actually collusion is part of the free market as long as the government is not involved in that collusion.

  9. https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1395055221240442880?s=19

    Biden is quoting Chairman Mao

    “Biden praises growing number of women graduating from U.S. Coast Guard Academy, noting Class of 2021 is over one-third female: “There’s a saying…’Women hold up half the world.’ It’s an absolutely stupid position not to make sure sure they represent at least half of what we do.” [Video]”

    1. He uses that line a lot. His favorite from Mao.

    2. It is not as if you may need the strongest people available to engage in rescue operations. 100 lbs waifs need to be represented equally as well.

  10. Suck that cock Nick

  11. Notice how Gillespie deliberately ignores the fact that these companies actions were directed from 430 South Capitol Street.

    This is pissing all over the first amendment by elected officials in the worst way, and if you don’t think so then you’re no libertarian.

  12. Making the right call involves applying the rules consistently. Yet, Facebook applies them selectively against Trump.

    Second, Facebook is under constant threat from government regulators, and they are not acting as a private company, but I’m a way that pleases the people who can destroy them. It’s the fascist system of governance, and Reason favors it.

    Utterly disgusting.

    1. they’re not just “under threat” from regulators, they’re asking for regulation. Go to their ‘about’ and ‘regulations’ page. As I believe Mad.Casual said some weeks ago in a thread, they’re asking Congress to slap its ass and pull its hair, while Reason says “hot!”.

      1. Looks like Gillespie is taking commissions now too.
        Nobody who wasn’t recieving brown envelopes would reach the conclusion that Facebook wasn’t acting on the orders of elected officials.

        Very disappointing.

  13. The Oversight Board comprises 20 individuals with backgrounds in tech, law, politics, and free speech activism”

    oh look a board of hand picked like minded people to do facebooks bidding.

    1. The FB oversight board is literally just a rubber-stamping commission to validate FB’s actions. It’s the private business equivalent of the government investigating itself and finding no wrong-doing.

  14. Remember when libritarian would actively mock and have total contempt for anybody that would say “I am in favor of free speech, but…”
    All the way back in 2015, good times, good times

    1. Turns out, Reason’s support for libertarian principles was always just a self-serving farce.

      1. Well, not always, but for quite a while now. Cato too.

      2. Property rights are a libertarian principle.

    2. “Freedom of speech” only applies to government.

  15. Banning people and ideas is never the right thing.

    1. That is correct. The private company argument is a fallacy. I am getting repetitive. Because it misses the point that it doesn’t have to be a government that is powerful enough restrict freedoms. It could be anything. And that’s when libertarians can get rightfully upset. I’ve had it with people exploiting libertarians pro-economic tendencies to justify the actions of private companies that don’t act like companies anymore.

      1. No independent private actor becomes as powerful as Facebook, free markets just don’t allow it. Among other things, without government intervention, we wouldn’t have a single global Internet operating effectively under net-neutrality standards, we would have a fragmented market in communications.

        Facebook is clearly in bed with the government: they are the result of government-imposed interoperability standards, they are supported by indirect government subsidies, they share data, they are regulated and pressured by the government, they lobby for regulations that advance their interests, and their executives and shareholders have become part of the government.

        1. “…their executives and shareholders have become part of the government.”

          When is the last time Facebook taxed anyone, or put them in jail, or “administered the death penalty”, or declared war? Or dropped bombs?

          Citation(s) please!

          1. So if Biden replaced every soldier in Afghanistan 1:1 with Blackwater employees, you’d approve?

            1. Blackwater employees in that scenario are agents of Government Almighty, with the power to kill at the drop of the hat. As history has shown, in Iraq. Does Facebook have the power to kill at the drop of a hat?

              If so, citation please!

              1. Blackwater employees in that scenario are agents of Government Almighty, with the power to kill at the drop of the hat. As history has shown, in Iraq. Does Facebook have the power to kill at the drop of a hat?

                I didn’t ask if Blackwater had the power to kill at the drop of a hat. I asked if you would approve of replacing public soldiers with private contractors. I won’t even burden you with citations, a simple good faith answer will suffice.

                1. Does Facebook have the power to kill at the drop of a hat?

                  Didn’t answer my question, did you?

                  No, I would NOT approve of contractors replacing Government Almighty goons! Goons A, goons B, no difference!

                  YOU want YOUR goons to boss around Facebook, don’t you?

                  1. YOU want YOUR goons to boss around Facebook, don’t you?

                    I didn’t pass section 230. Section 230 doesn’t prevent government goons (mine or not) from bossing around Facebook. Moreover, my answer is immaterial with regard to the revealed (“YOU want YOUR goons to boss around Facebook, don’t you?”) question.

                    Your answer, “No, I would NOT approve of contractors replacing Government Almighty goons! Goons A, goons B, no difference!”, OTOH, begs the question, “When exactly does a contractor cross the line from being a private entity into being goons (A or B) and who decides?” Do we wait until FB kills someone before opposing them or can we call them out for getting special protections while acting in bad faith?

                    1. Do we wait until Mad.Casual kills someone before opposing them or can we call them out for getting special protections while acting in bad faith?

                      Pre-emptive strikes, pre-emptive revenge for what someone else MIGHT do! THAT is the ticket to peace, according to Mad.Casual!

                      “Special protections” my ass! Section 230 is short and sweet, and LIMITS the power of Government Almighty! And makes NO special carve-outs for ANYONE!

                      READ UP on shit before blathering bullshit, bullshitter!

                      Section 230 …
                      https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act.shtml

                    2. Youre arguing with someone that is too stupid to realize by not granting an entity extra legal protections they are not comandeering said company.

                      Nobody is telling Facebook to post speech. They are asking them to trade free speech principles for extra legal protections. That is perfectly on the purview of allowed legal discourse as currently understood.

                      I do think we need a full discussion on their one sided contractual terms and how we disallow any other industry such terms as the ability to modify terms at their whim including retroactively.

                      But again, you’re dealing with an idiot forced to return to his sock even with a mute function.

                    3. Hey JesseBahnFuhrer… No matter HOW many times you tell your “Big Lie”, it is NOT true! You’re part of the mob, aren’t you? For a small fee, you tell small businesses that you will “protect” them… From you and your mob! Refute the below, ye greedy authoritarian who wants to shit all over the concept of private property!

                      Look, I’ll make it pretty simple for simpletons. A prime argument of enemies of Section 230 is, since the government does such a HUGE favor for owners of web sites, by PROTECTING web site owners from being sued (in the courts of Government Almighty) as a “publisher”, then this is an unfair treatment of web site owners! Who SHOULD (lacking “unfair” section 230 provisions) be able to get SUED for the writings of OTHER PEOPLE! And punished by Government Almighty, for disobeying any and all decrees from Government Almighty’s courts, after getting sued!

                      In a nutshell: Government Almighty should be able to boss around your uses of your web site, because, after all, Government Almighty is “protecting” you… From Government Almighty!!!

                      Wow, just THINK of what we could do with this logic! Government Almighty is “protecting” you from getting sued in matters concerning who you chose to date or marry… In matters concerning what line of work you chose… What you eat and drink… What you read… What you think… Therefore, Government Almighty should be able to boss you around on ALL of these matters, and more! The only limits are the imaginations and power-lusts of politicians!

        2. I don’t deny they are in the bed with government. But they still are part of the private sector. And therefore, libertarians need to accept that entities in the private sector (via cronyism or not) can exist, and the ultimate measure is not the place they are in, but the degree of power they have. So I guess we agree something needs to happen here. Scotus is on it, I think.

          1. Ok this is garbled. Was typing too fast.

            Meant to say that POWERFUL entities in the private sector can exist and the ultimate measureMENT is not the place but the degree of power.

      2. There’s no “freedom” to be on Facebook’s property.

    2. Unless you own Facebook, your opinion of what is the “right thing” for Facebook is not relevant.

  16. Liberaltarians for private companies doing the work of the federal government and law enforcement.

    1. Exactly, but as I am saying with a level of obnoxious perseverance, it doesn’t even matter if the private companies are really govt associated. It only matters that they have so much power that they can function with a quasi-govt level of power and use it to suppress individual freedoms like free speech. A political direction isn’t even required here. Traditionally, governments where the ones with such powers. This has changed. It changed when companies were not acting like companies anymore because their interest in growth and profit is second on the list in many decisions.

      Again, that they are government adjacent is not required. The only thing that matters is they are a ‘highly powerful entity acting to restrict freedom’. This can be anything, but often happened to be governments in the past.

    2. How exactly are they doing the work of government?

  17. Only up and running since the start of this year, the board has already been twice as likely to overturn Facebook’s decisions as it is to uphold them, a strong show of accountability and seriousness of purpose.

    No understanding of what ‘accountability and seriousness of purpose’ actually means makes this statement laughable.

    So what happens if FB changes its terms and the plaintiff claims no knowledge of the change? Does the oversight board have investigative powers? Do they, equally under the law and in the interest of fairness and impartiality, extend beyond FB or no?

    How about a post supporting a pledge drive is removed right at the beginning of the pledge drive? Does the oversight board only have the power to reinstate the post after the drive has taken place/been cancelled or does it have the power to actually remunerate for damages involved?

    Without addressing all of the above, the board can rule against Facebook 100% of the time into perpetuity and still serve no purpose other than as an example of a pseudo-legal farce.

    1. But they’re Top Men. Reason loves the Top Men.

      1. Even when paid off, blindfolded, and cut off at the ankles apparently.

  18. Fonzie jumps the shark again!

    #libertarians4censorship

    1. It’s only censorship if it’s by government.

  19. Jesus Christ, what a sneaky bitch Gillespie is.

    You know what nobody tells you? That private companies are preferred to be the executers and implementers of the left-authoritarian narratives, because:

    PRIVATE COMPANIES CAN GET AWAY WITH MORE.

    This is the case because the ‘it’s a private company’ shills will parrot it until it’s as stale as every other lefty talking point and people become aware of the fallacy. See the anti-semitic content that is still on facebook (‘from Palestine to the sea’). Gillespie enables this with his support of private censorship, or worse, private content- and thought-selection. Well, it has been brought up in SCOTUS that maybe we should look at giants like FB and Google in a different light. Get ready.

    1. Maybe it was FB and twatter, but the point still holds: Get ready.

  20. I got caught up by Facebook’s automated censorship. When Georgia Congressman Clyde said the Capital rioters acted like mere tourists I replied sarcastically. “Every time I go to the Capital I carry bear spray and shoot it at the cops. It keeps them on their toes” Banned for 3 days. If that is not a facetious comment what is? You can challenge it and I guess some robot responds or someone that does not know English.

  21. What a joke, terrorists committing terrorist acts, mullahs calling or terrorist acts, Hitler, Stalin and Mao quotes, and every other type of riff raff can be on Facebook, but not a President that called for “Peaceful and Patriotic” protests. But hey, when you are right you are right, King George put a price on George Washington’s, Thomas Jefferson’s and Ben Franklin’s heads. They were banned to. Lucky for us they succeeded or they would have all been hanged and we would still be paying taxes to Great Britain. Reason is an official joke.

    1. “…a President that called for “Peaceful and Patriotic” protests.”

      For full context, READ the below!

      https://www.salon.com/2021/04/11/trumps-big-lie-and-hitlers-is-this-how-americas-slide-into-totalitarianism-begins/
      Trump’s Big Lie and Hitler’s: Is this how America’s slide into totalitarianism begins?
      Oh but I know… Anything that disagrees with the conservaturd echo chamber is “Marxist”, right? No matter HOW factual it might be!

      Totalitarians want to turn GOP into GOD (Grand Old Dicktatorshit).

  22. “He says that a private company moderating content on its platform is fully in keeping with libertarian principles. ”

    NO, A POWERFUL PRIVATE COMPANY CAN BE JUST AS DETRIMENTAL TO FREEDOM AS A GOVERNMENT.

    Think outside your box for a moment. Libertarians are about freedom. What can take away your freedom? Someone who is too powerful and influential and uses this to make centrally planned decisions that take away your freedom. Traditionally, this was the government. But there is no reason to believe that a private social media moloch can’t do the same thing, given enough power. Dont fall for the private company fallacy.

  23. Then please tell us how Facebook was also right to not ban tons of other government officials using Facebook to promote real, actual, no-shit, violence.

    What about the non-government people posting online threats?

    Why was Trump a uniquely horrible case that had to be dealt with in a way that no one else needed?

    1. It’s a major shitshow whenever powerful major companies become economically corrupt and cease to serve their purpose. That’s what this is. Libertarians have to swallow the pill that sufficiently powerful firms can become tyrants too.

  24. If you don’t like Facebook don’t use their service – that is how you change their behavior. I’ve manage fine never being on their site. Fucking addicts bitching about their drug dealer’s quality – get a new dealer or get off the crank; those are the options.

    1. I think a vote with dollars or presence on a website is weaker than a vote with the ballot. The users that have no clue are to blame, sure. But isn’t it weird that libertarians are all for restricting government power but when a private entity acquires similar levels of power, suddenly it’s all rosy and fine? Reminds me of certain fed reserve people who thought the market was infallible.

      Wake up, the problem is not private or public, the problem is merely ‘too much power in one place for freedom not to take a hit’.

      1. Apples and oranges. Huge difference between private and public. Only the government can take your money without your permission.

    2. Facebook isn’t their only service. If you choose another service they operate in collusion to hamper and damage said service. You are missing the trees for the forest. Not sure why.

      1. I think people should go back to having their own websites or the creation of some kind of decentralized distribution platform. Self ownership being the ultimate solution to Big Tech. And that ultimately the central nature of the these platforms is their own downfall. The Tower Babel will fall under is own mass, communism/central control doesn’t work due to our very nature. Trying to craft legislation that will change human nature is doomed to fail and will only cause more damage then good.

  25. What threatens freedom? Excessive power. These private entities have that now. And the engineers of this love the thought that they were able to outsource this power out of the government. Wonder how long it will take us to realize that the excessive power is the problem, not which sector it occurs in, private or whatever the fuck.

  26. I’m no Trump fan (not in the least), but it’s patently absurd to ban a (former) president of the United States from posting on a global social media platform that has become monopolistic.

    It was also patently absurd for the NY Times to have qualms about publishing an opinion piece by a sitting US Senator.

    It’s like Fahrenheit 451 happening for real.

    1. Absurd, yes, as you said.

      But with MY property, as long as I don’t violate the rights of others… And saying things that hurt the baby feelings of others, or not allowing them to speak on MY forum, in MY house; these things aren’t “violating rights” for sensible folks and their definitions… Then it is MY right to be absurd if I want to, with MY property, and Government Almighty, and Nanny-State-Butt-Sucking voters (of ALL stripes) can kiss my ass!

    2. PS, the other absurdity at the other end is: Facebook will kick you off of THEIR forum for advocating violence (selling or pushing child porn, yada-yada) because it is not good for THEIR business.

      But… SPECIAL people? POTUSes and Senators, Fed Judges? THEY can post WHATEVER THEY LIKE! Special rules for special people! THAT is what lies at the OTHER end of the absurdity spectrum!

      (Seek balance as usual).

    3. Nonsense.
      Trump was president, not king.

  27. Stick a fork in Reason, it’s done.

    1. I hear they are trying to get the rights to ‘treason.com’

    2. lol, you’ll keep coming back when you need to repost an article supporting gun rights not written by someone with the stupid of Western Journal

  28. The solution indeed resides in letting users, use all the filters their hearts desire, including none.

    Zuckerberg is indeed an appalling control freak and idea thief

    It would be sport to see his victims turn into his nemesis , starting with the Winkelvoos brothers, who have turned their eight figure settlement into cryptocurrency enough to start up a platform that takes the first amendment at face value.

    1. The solution indeed resides in letting users, use all the filters their hearts desire, including none.

      Still doesn’t address up front, internal, and backend moderation and abiding by TOS. All the filters your heart desires don’t mean dick if FB is under no obligation to provide them in any sort of sensible or workable fashion or is free to revoke or nullify them on a whim. Doubly-so if FB knows up front that it can implement such filters in bad faith and suffer no consquences.

      Note: This isn’t a call for FB to be regulated to prevent trolling. This to point out that even billionaires can be trolls and equality under the law means they shouldn’t get any special protections that any closely-held corporation, personally-owned baker, or random internet troll doesn’t get.

  29. No they were not right. Mark Zuckerberg said in his 2017 testimony before the U.S. Senate that he wanted Facebook to be “a forum for all ideas.” Obviously he was lying or he would have stepped in and overruled this decision.

    It’s one thing for a company to have private property rights, another for its CEO to claim to want to support the dissemination of ideas and then allow things to go on in his company to squelch it. It doesn’t help that Facebook’s terms of service are so vague that its nearly impossible to know what is and is not allowed.

    I can just hear libertarians now saying: “If Trump doesn’t like it let him start his own platform.” Kinda hard when the left’s woke ethics have infected even payment processing companies like PayPal. Remember that? Link to article with juicy details below. This may even extend into Visa, Mastercard, and other payment processing companies like Stripe.

    Thankfully, VDARE (one of the groups affected) is suing PayPal because of what happened and they might have a chance since California law prohibits discrimination against political views in terms of providing services. However it will be some time before a decision is made. Like I think the saying goes: “Justice delayed is justice denied.”

    https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/02/25/paypal-ceo-admits-partnership-with-far-left-splc-to-blacklist-conservatives/

    1. Maybe he meant “a forum for all ideas except the ones that incite an insurrection against the United States.”

      One wonders why there are so many people here crying about that thought being suppressed. Your lives literally depend on that thought being suppressed.

  30. I really can’t believe you wrote this horseshit. You will look back and regret it.

  31. FB is what it is due to privilege given its funding from Hedge Funds who have access to money at lower than market rates via the Fed. Its an insiders game and given the primary dealers and bankers are mostly part of the liberal NYC/Govt complex it isn’t surprising FB was funded..this alone disqualifies CATO’s reasoning. In addition FB is not a sovereign nation and has to obey the Bill of Rights…the phone companies don’t police speech and neither should FB or Google or Twitter or any of the bolsevik organs. Common Carrier rules apply wokes

    1. So some people funded Facebook with THEIR money, and now FB has some money and power that Titus Bursitis Plutonium Poisoned-Mind lusts after… This calls for Government Almighty to MAKE Facebook do whatever it is that Titus Bursitis Plutonium Poisoned-Mind (and confederates) wants FB to do! Because Government Almighty taking over private property has worked SOOOOO well in communist nations, right, power pig!

      VERY progressive, Comrade! All Hail Titus Bursitis Plutonium Poisoned-Mind! Your living room is now a “Common Carrier” because Comrade Titus Bursitis Plutonium Poisoned-Mind says so!

    2. Common Carrier rules apply wokes

      They either apply or they don’t. The insistence that there’s a gray area and that FB/Twitter selectively occupy it clearly indicates that they’re being handled specially relative to conventional media and common carriers. The fact that the title of the bill grating them this special treatment is ‘
      Protection For ‘Good Samaritan’ Blocking and Screening of Offensive Material’ means, unequivocally, they’re being granted special protection.

      1. “Protection For ‘Good Samaritan’ Blocking and Screening of Offensive Material’ means, unequivocally, they’re being granted special protection.”

        Special protection from being sued in the courts of Government Almighty!

        Look, I’ll make it pretty simple for simpletons. A prime argument of enemies of Section 230 is, since the government does such a HUGE favor for owners of web sites, by PROTECTING web site owners from being sued (in the courts of Government Almighty) as a “publisher”, then this is an unfair treatment of web site owners! Who SHOULD (lacking “unfair” section 230 provisions) be able to get SUED for the writings of OTHER PEOPLE! And punished by Government Almighty, for disobeying any and all decrees from Government Almighty’s courts, after getting sued!

        In a nutshell: Government Almighty should be able to boss around your uses of your web site, because, after all, Government Almighty is “protecting” you… From Government Almighty!!!

        Wow, just THINK of what we could do with this logic! Government Almighty is “protecting” you from getting sued in matters concerning who you chose to date or marry… In matters concerning what line of work you chose… What you eat and drink… What you read… What you think… Therefore, Government Almighty should be able to boss you around on ALL of these matters, and more! The only limits are the imaginations and power-lusts of politicians!

        Nice knee-caps ya got there, Mad! Be a shame if something happened to them! Damned gangster! You are a GANGSTER for Government Almighty, with your advocacy, power piggish one!

    3. They’re not a common carrier, and “common carrier” is a commie idea.

      If phone companies were allowed to compete under free market rules, I’d have no problem with them policing speech. You’d just switch phone companies if you didn’t like it.

      The Bill of Rights, including the 1A, only applies to government. It does not apply to Facebook.

  32. I used to think highly of Nick’s views. Seems like he (along with Sullum, ENB and many others at Reason) is suffering from a terminal case of TDS.

    1. You know you’re in a cult, right?

      Prove me wrong. Criticize Donald Trump. Not about how you wish he wasn’t so rude on Twitter. Something about his job as president. Something serious. Name it.

      1. There is something truly wrong with the world when I agree with Tony. The minute I saw the headline I knew there would be the regular Trump champions in here defending the guy. Sad because Trump is not only a stupid and shitty person, but he’s an enormous distraction. At a time when Republicans could really leverage dislike of the current administration, too many of them are greasing their assholes to receive Trump yet again. If Republicans don’t take the House and the Presidency, it will be because of their insane, obsessive love of Trump.

        1. StackOfCoins speaks mighty truths!!! Yay for StackOfCoins!!!

        2. Totally agree.

      2. The bump stock thing was a terrible disappointment.

        He screwed up staffing multiple times, usually by being too reluctant to fire people, ironically; He could have avoided a lot of problems by firing a long list of people right at his inauguration, before they had time to lay traps for him.

        I wish he’d been a lot more confrontational with the bureaucracy. Sure, “never issue an order you know won’t be obeyed”, but he really needed to have it out with them very publicly, and establish whether the President really got to issue orders or not.

        I wince every time he opens his mouth, I know it’s either going to be something painfully rambling, or pointless braggadocio.

        He continued the election challenges too long, he should have rolled that up after the EC voted, and just concentrated on pursuing election reforms without the looming possibility of overturning the election to cause the courts to almost uniformly refuse to take the cases.

        I like that he was a fighter, but at some point you have to know when to stop fighting.

        ….

        On the other side, I see a cult of anti-Trump. People who will insist his fortune is somehow fake. That a moron managed to get elected President with almost everything against him. People who follow a principle of anti-leniency when evaluating everything he says or does, applying the worst possible interpretation of his utterances, ignoring all context, any reasonable interpretation, and often not even caring that the meaning they’re attributing is contradicted by what he actually said.

        He wasn’t a fantastic President, but he wasn’t a horror show, either. But some people insist he had to be. That’s as cultish as anything you see in his admirers.

        1. ^

  33. I don’t think there’s a libertarian contradiction. A free-for-all on the internet is not a basic human right. It’s a brand new technology. It will have unpredictable positive and negative effects on society. Why not wait a bit and see what those are before deciding what to do about it?

    What was that? Oh, because you must submit every goddamn thing to a ludicrous ideological test that someone made up out of thin air?

    Frankly, it’s not just you, it’s everyone. Everyone’s crazy. I don’t use Facebook, consciously, and for a good reason. Everyone else seems to think that abomination of a computer program and Twitter are suddenly platforms for human rights. Tell that to the millions of people who were propagandized into being basically white ISIS in the span of a couple years.

    It’s called an addiction. We get help for those.

    As for Facebook, the other perspective is that a private company having a supreme court deciding the rights of former presidents sounds like the most absurd thing in the history of the world since Donald Trump’s hairdo. No private company should have enough power to need a supreme court that decides anything but how much to spend on toilet paper.

    1. Trump has no “right” to be on Twitter.

  34. I don’t have an issue with a private company having a code of conduct. I also agree that Trump may have violated Facebooks code of conduct. My concern is related to the uneven enforcement of violations of their code of conduct.

    The effectiveness and fairness of the Facebook Oversight board is unknown at this point. Facebook currently has countless accounts who are violating their code of conduct rules that are still not banned and likely will not be banned due to their ideological bent.

    Personally I do not use much social media as I consider it mostly a waste of valuable time. There however is a large percentage of the population who are active so it is still a concern due to its ability to shape our lives (including people who avoid social media).

  35. Trump’s deleted posts, per the board’s report.

    “I know your pain. I know you’re hurt. We had an election that was stolen from us. It was a landslide election, and everyone knows it, especially the other side, but you have to go home now. We have to have peace. We have to have law and order. We have to respect our great people in law and order. We don’t want anybody hurt. It’s a very tough period of time. There’s never been a time like this where such a thing happened, where they could take it away from all of us, from me, from you, from our country. This was a fraudulent election, but we can’t play into the hands of these people. We have to have peace. So go home. We love you. You’re very special. You’ve seen what happens. You see the way others are treated that are so bad and so evil. I know how you feel. But go home and go home in peace.”

    “These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly unfairly treated for so long. Go home with love in peace. Remember this day forever!”

    Not sure how “go home in peace” is inciting violence.

    1. I understand they interpret merely contesting the election as incitement to violence.

    2. Again, the secular/atheistic leftist party of Science! chose ‘loaves and fishes’ Jesus for his ability to feed hungry masses over ‘love thy neighbor’ Jesus because the latter was a divisive Nazi.

    3. Falsely claiming a stolen election was enough reason to ban him.

  36. Media Bias Exhibit #1 —
    Democratic Politicians CALLED Facebook to have Trump removed.
    The news on this ………………………….. Crickets….

  37. Ha ha! Trumptards wanting to give a Democrat-controlled Congress and Executive power over social media companies because they’re mean to Orange Fatty! you can’t make this shit up!

    1. Following in the footsteps of their Dear Leader, they think that they can pussy-grab everyone all day every day, and NO ONE will EVER think of pussy-grabbing them right back! They are utterly clueless, living in a fantasy land!

    2. “The Sound Of Despots”

      Hello darkness, my old friend, I’ve come to talk with you again
      Because a nightmare in jackboots, left its seeds while I was sleeping
      And the nightmare that was planted in my brain, still remains
      Within the sound of despots

      In nightmares I ran alone, narrow streets of cobblestone
      Neath the halo of a streetlamp, I turned my collar to the cold and damp
      When my eyes were stabbed by the flash of an orange light, split the night
      And touched the sound of despots

      And in their naked greed I saw, millions of sheeple, maybe more
      Sheeple talking without speaking, sheeple hearing without listening
      Sheeple’s thoughts, sanity never shared, and no one dared
      To question the despots!

      Fool, said I, you do not know, despots, like a cancer, grows
      Hear my words and I might teach you, take my arms then I might reach you
      But my words, like silent raindrops fell, and echoed in the wells of despots

      And the morons bowed and prayed to the orange god they’d made
      And the sign flashed its warning in the words that it was forming
      And the sign said the words of the despots are written in the Biggest Lies
      And tenement halls, and shouted, in the sounds of despots

      This poetry inspired by the REAL facts of a REAL nightmare!
      https://www.salon.com/2021/04/11/trumps-big-lie-and-hitlers-is-this-how-americas-slide-into-totalitarianism-begins/
      Trump’s Big Lie and Hitler’s: Is this how America’s slide into totalitarianism begins?

  38. This thread is what happens when you argue principles with people who don’t have any.

    Of course the left DOES NOT believe that private entities should have the right to do as they please – no one does – or else we would still have ‘white only’ signs on southern diners. So arguing about this is a waste of time.

    The left wants to ban/cancel people/ideas they disagree with or consider dangerous. The only question is whether the rest of us are going to let them get away with it.

    1. This is meant to be a stand alone comment but I can’t get that to work…..

      I don’t understand how this article excuses the lefts MANY clear incitements and how they have LARGELY gotten away uncensored.

      Horse apples. Shenanigans.

    2. The right only cares about free speech when it’s them whining about a publisher not publishing their own racist cartoons, or the right of shop owners to advertise their racism, or Tucker Carlson being racist, or Donald Trump being racist.

      I’m not a PR genius, but maybe defend free speech on some grounds other than racism?

      1. You really do live in your own delusions.
        Democrats make the color of one’s own skin MEAN EVERYTHING!
        The very definition of racist. Funny how the racists love running around telling everyone else they’re racist.

        Projection 100%

    3. Segregation involved government requiring businesses to discriminate. Nobody is for that.

      Libertarians are absolutely in favor of allowing diners to not serve blacks. They’ll just lose customers; the free market will take care of the problem.

  39. Social media platforms should be in the business of providing a platform and only moderating it’s use insofar as it pertains to the actual law (i.e. don’t use the platform to hack people and commit fraud). When social media platforms start engaging in censorious behavior, they are acting less like platforms and more like publishers. Publishers are welcome to pick and choose who gets to use the letterhead of their publication to spread their opinions or information. I.e. Reason is a publisher for Nick Gillespie. Acting as a publisher comes with different legal responsibilities than acting as a platform. As a publisher, Reason doesn’t get a pass to allow Nick to slander people and both Nick and Reason would be legally liable if he did and they published it. Facebook can ban Trump if they want, but in so doing they acknowledge that they have editorial power over what appears on their platform and they thus become liable to all the provable defamation that goes on on their platform. You either get to be a hands off platform or you get to take responsibility for what goes on your site, in which case it’s not a good idea to edit away all the comments that are not legally actionable but which they politically disagree with, while simultaneously keeping up those posts that expose them to actual legal liability.

  40. I wish REASON was still a solid Libertarian magazine and had not become as woke as its media stars now want it to be.

    I am hoping for an actual Libertarian magazine along the lines of Liberty or the older version of Reason.

    New title should be ” Some Reason”

  41. Facebook is not a model of non-state governance in cyberspace as this author puts it. It’s actions are totally reliant on the misuse of a government regulatory rule (section 230) which characterizes the legal liabilities platforms may face and then creates a carve out against said legal liability that places those companies beyond the reach of a lawsuit (as would be typical for say newspapers that print defamatory articles). Absent those section 230 carveouts, companies would be free to censor online content but they would also invite liability for allowing defamatory content they fail to remove. Section 230 has given Facebook the ability to live simultaneously as a regulator of online speech it disagrees with while incurring none of the liabilities of other defamatory online speech it prefers. Facebook’s regulatory power is not an outgrowth of free market principals but rather a product of unnatural government influences on the market.

    1. Sooo… Your “fix” to all of this is to punish “publishers” (web sites) for the content generated by OTHER people? Those who post?

      SOME people here have argued that, since there has been at least one (several?) case(s) of hardcopy rags (newspapers) sued FOR THE WRITINGS OF OTHERS, namely letter-to-the-editor writers (it was all well and good to authoritarians that SOME people got punished for the writings of OTHER people), then the proper fix MUST be to perpetrate / perpetuate this obvious injustice right on over to the internet domain!

      This is like arguing that the “fix” for a cop strangling to death, a black man (Eric Garner) on suspicion of wanting to sell “loosies” is, not to STOP the injustice, but rather, to go and find some White and Hispanic and Asian men as well, and strangle them, as well, on suspicion of wanting to sell “loosies”! THAT will make it all “fair”!

      WHEN will authoritarians see and acknowledge their power-pig fascism?!?!

      1. No. It’s actually punishing websites for the content that they choose to publish. Newspapers are sued frequently for the libelous writings of their writers. Facebook is no different. Once website choose to go from letting people use their site as a platform for speech to using their site to pick and choose opinions and promote libelous commentary they agree with while silencing content they disagree with, they are objectively acting in the capacity of a publisher and a malicious one at that.

        Your comparison to the Eric Garner case is an outright nonsequiter. They are utterly different incidents that share no logical connection. It’s not some scandalous idea that companies who libel and slander people are held liable for it.

        1. “… to using their site to pick and choose opinions…”

          It is THEIR web site, NOT yours, power pig! Gee, Government Almighty effectively taking over private property, and telling private property owners what they may and may not do with THEIR property? Didn’t Joe Stalin and a bunch of other despots try this? How well did it work?

          So in Authoritarian-Land, then, the Association of Catholic Nuns Who Garden-Tend, if it sets up a chat group for discussing their hobby, should be forced to accept pro-abortion, anti-Catholic-nuns rants, on their internet forum? What happened to private property rights, and the right to freely associate, or not associate?

          Apparently individual freedom and property rights are merely minor obstacles to those who lust after POWER, power, and MORE power over others!

          1. If it’s Facebook’s website, fine. It’s their website. New York Times also has a website. Reason.com is a website. The difference is NYT and Reason take responsibility for what their authors write while Facebook tries to invoke a legal Schrodinger cat argument where it both acts as though it’s responsible for what goes on its website but rejects any legal liability for obvious cases of defamation.

            Calling this out doesn’t make me a power pig. It just means I’m able to see the obvious and I’m not retarded.

            If whateverthefuckCatholicpublication you mentioned wants to operate a pro-Catholic publication. It’s free to do so. It just doesn’t get a free pass to publish factually false and utterly baseless claims that prominent Jews are engaging in pedophilia. That’s called libel. Private property does not extend to it’s owners the right to slander other property owners. It’s not complicated, you’re just reducing it to the dumbest possible explanation because you don’t seem to understand what libel is.

            1. It is morally, ethically WRONG to punish “Party A” for the doings (or writings or speech) of “Party B”. It violates fundamental justice! Do YOU want to be punished for MY writings?

              No matter HOW many people have been doing this for HOW long, it is WRONG! It is also fed by greedy lawyers looking for the deepest pockets! There is NO valid excuse for this!

              1. If I don’t want to be punished for your writings, I shouldn’t grant you access to use my news website to make defamatory statements. The NYT and Reason understand this responsibility. Facebook pretends it doesn’t and can’t.

                If I as Facebook want to not concern myself with either your defamatory comments or dumb opinions I can either be sure to prevent you from publishing posts or articles on my website (a policy I would also have to carry over to other writers using my site to make defamatory statements) or I would have to put myself in a legal status where it is clear that I am simply giving people a platform to express themselves as they may and I take no responsibility whatsoever for what they say. This is not difficult to understand.

                1. From Facebook’s web page explaining all these kinds of details, very easy to find:

                  https://www.facebook.com/ … terms.php (I suspect I can’t post the whole link, delete the spaces).

                  We do not control or direct what people and others do or say, and we are not responsible for their actions or conduct (whether online or offline) or any content they share (including offensive, inappropriate, obscene, unlawful, and other objectionable content).

                  End Facebook import.

                  Facebook likes to be free from being held responsible for the doings of others, AND they clearly say as much, but power pigs don’t want to LET THEM be free of such an obvious injustice!

                  1. Facebook constantly editing and censoring content on their website blatantly flies in the face of that statement that they don’t control what goes on their website. If Facebook wants to stick by this premise that they don’t exercise control over what goes on their site, they are welcome to remain in the role of a platform, rather than a publisher. They haven’t been doing that though.

                    1. “…they are welcome to remain in the role of a platform…”

                      You’re lusting after telling other people what they are (or are not) welcome to do with THEIR property! Even if you get 51% of voters to join your dog-pile, it is NOT morally or ethically right! Communism (Government Almighty, collectivist-hive ownership of property rights better left in the hands of those who built it, and-or paid for it) does NOT work, even if we ignore the immorality of it all!

            2. Another point you seem to misunderstand is when you characterize the act of recognizing Facebook is acting as a publisher and not a platform as “Government Almighty telling property owners what they can or can’t do with their property.” Nowhere is my solution proposing the government take any sort of regulatory action. Rather, my solution is more a legal opinion that companies like Facebook are engaging in what is legally actionable defamation and that a path of legal recourse already exists in the courts but a misused government regulation (the thing you are claiming to oppose) is being used to grant special legal protection to Facebook where a company acting in a similar fashion (i.e. the New York Times) would not enjoy the same legal shield from liability. The government doesn’t need to do anything. At best the courts only need to hear arguments that section 230 creates an unequal application of the common law surrounding issues like defamation and that companies like Facebook which pick and choose and promote certain content are can also reasonably take responsibility for other content they publish that is defamatory. That’s it. Stop twisting yourself up.

              1. At the end of the day, you want to be able to punish Facebook for what OTHER people wrote and posted to Facebook! Can you deny that?

                1. At the end of the day I want Facebook to be held to the same standard the NYT is for publishing content that is factually false and defamatory. I am also open to the possibility that Facebook never has to be punished for what others write on their website if they decide that they are in the business of creating a tool/utility/platform for free speech rather than expressing an editorial role to synthesize news and opinions and even defamatory statements they happen to agree with. I don’t know how I can explain this any more clearly.

                  1. So you think that the NYT and Facebook BOTH need to be punished for what OTHER people have written! Are you, or friend(s) or family member(s) lawyers, looking for deep pockets, perhaps? If you can persuade 51% of the voters (or politicians) that wrong is right, then wrong becomes right, right?

                    Defamation can be a problem, yes! Sue those who do harm by defaming, not those who sold them pens and paper to write with! Expecting me to police who I sell pens & paper to, is NOT going to help! Pens and paper, internet access (posting forum), what is the difference?

                    1. No. NYT and Facebook would both be punished for the defamatory statements THEIR writers publish. The moment they start picking and choosing who can write on their website, Facebook isn’t being a platform, it’s being a publisher. If Joe Schmoe at NYT writes a defamatory article and the NYT publishes it, both Schmoe and NYT are liable for that defamation. Why is NYT liable? Because it chose to allow Schmoe to produce content for them and it choose to sanction Schmoe’s defamatory statements that it then published. The same would apply to Facebook. They are picking and choosing who gets to write posts on their website and when they show that they will remove content or users they don’t like, they are demonstrating they exercise editorial discretion over their content and thus are willing to invite the same legal liability as the NYT does.

                      If I own a restaurant and I knowingly allow a criminal organization to use my cooler to stash dead bodies, I incur legal liability even though I am not a member of that criminal organization. Why? Because I granted them access to my property willfully and allowed them to use that property in the furtherance of a crime.

                      Setting aside all the defamatory contents from site authors that Facebook sanctions to write on their website, Facebook frequently publishes it’s very own defamatory statements in company letterhead. For example, I’ve seen literal posts citing CDC guidance labeled with a Facebook generated fact-checks label that states something to the effect of “This post is not in accordance with CDC guidelines.” It is a knowing false statement of fact to label information from the CDC as “not in accordance with CDC guidelines.” Content creators using FB and other sites like YouTube and Twitter have frequently appealed these fact check labels and those websites have all persisted in keeping up a knowingly false statement. When Twitter labeled the New York Post’s articles about Hunter Biden’s laptop as a breach of it’s “hacked materials policy” the issuance of that label was a demonstrably false statement of fact that caused real reputational damage to the Post. Twitter ultimately retracted the label and apologized. Why? Because it was obviously false and persisting in keeping up a defamatory statement increases your liability in a lawsuit.

                      The fact of the matter is the Facebook’s and Twitters of the world frequently make editorial decisions and then pretend it’s not feasible for them to review all content on their website. Can’t have it both ways.

                    2. “…then pretend it’s not feasible for them to review all content on their website.”

                      In the real world now, if Section 230 is torn down and replaced with some horrible mish-mash that allows “Party A” to be punished for the writings of “Party B”, Facebook and Reason.com CAN pony up $millions or $billions to “review all content”, and then hope some wild-ass random jury doesn’t screw them over anyways… Yes, Reason and Facebook CAN make it happen! But, prepare to PAY $5 or $15 per post, to pay for it all!

                      WHERE can I opt out of the results of your power-piggish ways, if-when this comes to pass?

                    3. Section 230 can be repealed without a replacement. No mishmash needed. Just go back to existing court precedent on defamation law. It’s not complicated. Mine is the path that requires the least regulation. Section 230 is the government regulatory move and all it did was create an unequal application of the law.

                    4. Facebook doesn’t need to pony up billions to police content if it simply decides not to police content. If it chooses to act like the platform that it claims it is, it simply needs to be a platform and it incurs no legal liability. Your model of having to pay $5 to $15 per post on Facebook is illogical. The most likely scenario is companies that are acting like publishers will decide it is not economical to allow it’s platform to hosts a bunch of defamatory statements that it isn’t willing to take responsibility for. You don’t get to make an entire business model around enabling actual defamation and get off scot-free. There’s no way to “opt-out” of responsibility for your actions or the actions you expressly permit others to take using your property. If I lend a cartel the use of my freezer to store their dead bodies, I’m responsible. If I lend someone on my website the latitude to go print defamatory statements in my company letterhead, it’s going to come back to me. Sorry you can’t conceptualize personal responsibility, but every other industry is at least aware that their businesses can incur liability and most of them tend to act accordingly. Facebook should be no different.

                    5. “Facebook doesn’t need to pony up billions to police content if it simply decides not to police content.”

                      Under the threat of Government Almighty-funded lawsuits in Government Almighty-funded courts of law! And then they will be like the Association of Catholic Nuns Who Garden-Tend, if it sets up a chat group for discussing their hobby, who should then be forced to accept pro-abortion, anti-Catholic-nuns rants, on their internet forum! What happened to private property rights, and the right to freely associate, or not associate?

                      I want NO part in your idealized fascist power-pig state!

                    6. NY Times can be punished for what someone ELSE wrote in a letter-to-the-editor in their hardcopy rag! An injustice, to be “fixed” by punishing Facebook for the same kind of offenses!

                      In 1850, I imagine that perhaps some people in the USA were saying it isn’t fair that white folks hold black folks as slaves. Let’s “fix” it by having a bunch of black folks hold white slaves, too!

                      What kind of EVIL person fixes injustice by widening the spread of more injustice of the same kind? HOW does this “fix” ANYTHING?!?!

                    7. “Under the threat of Government Almighty-funded lawsuits”

                      That’s not how lawsuits work. Private parties would be free to file the lawsuits and carry the cost of proving their case. You’re imputing claims into my argument that I haven’t once made in dozens of back and forth comments.

                      “I want NO part in your idealized fascist power-pig state!”

                      Lawsuits aren’t fascism. Currently the government is conferring added protection to a preferred class of businesses it likes. That’s the actual definition of fascism (the marriage of corporate and state). My solution is to end this fascism. Maybe look up a definition before you throw big words around willy nilly.

                      “NY Times can be punished for what someone ELSE wrote in a letter-to-the-editor in their hardcopy rag! An injustice, to be “fixed” by punishing Facebook for the same kind of offenses!”

                      As I’ve explained perhaps a dozen times now, NYT has the editorial discretion to publish letters to the editor that they receive or not, just like everything else they publish. Facebook similarly decides whether they want content to be published or not so their liability is the same. When Facebook exercises discretion over what gets posted, there’s no party B. Everything that goes on their site has their blessing and therefore their responsibility too.

                      “In 1850, I imagine that perhaps some people in the USA were saying it isn’t fair that white folks hold black folks as slaves. Let’s “fix” it by having a bunch of black folks hold white slaves, too!”

                      This is not and has not ever been my argument. It’s an absolute nonsequiter to what we’re talking about and if you think there’s a relevant connection here, I’m afraid you are mentally lost in the woods. What you sound like you are describing is called critical race theory and “Anti-Racism” which is the practice of using racial discrimination to correct past perceived racial wrongs. It’s highly unethical and not at all similar to actual publishers who publish defamatory content being held liable for it. What’s going on inside your mind?

                      “What kind of EVIL person fixes injustice by widening the spread of more injustice of the same kind? HOW does this “fix” ANYTHING?!?!”

                      Holding the publishers of defamatory content liable for said defamatory content is not “fixing injustice with more injustice”. It’s holding the party who caused the original injustice liable.

                    8. “That’s not how lawsuits work.”

                      Oh bullshit! Who pays for the judges’ salaries, the court buildings, and the meager pay of the jurors? MOST of all, WHO pays the cops who come and beat me up and jail me, after I disobey Government Almighty’s commands after Government Almighty finds me “in the wrong” for having hurt someone’s baby feelings, post-Section-230 Crazy-Time?!?! Lawsuit lotteries HURT innocent victims! And you want MORE random lawsuit lotteries!

                      In the internet era, cheap PC (and communications) power means we CAN have FREE (cost-free to you and me) free speech, as we are enjoying right here and now! Expecting Reason.com to “police” our speech here in detail, at NO new costs to us, is an utter fantasy! What next, you expect pens and papers sellers to “police my content” when I use their products?

                      PLEASE stifle your fascist thoughts! “Dictatorial majority”, hello?!?! You convince your dog-pile of 51% of the voters to re-install slavery, then slavery is OK in your mind, isn’t it!?! Power pig!

                      Don’t be evil! And don’t spread evil, power-pig thoughts! Ye slave to the Evil One!

                    9. “It is good and right and true, to punish Party A for the doings or writings or speech of Party B”.

                      Another one in a LOOONG list of Big Lies! No matter HOW often the lie is told, it does NOT become true! And the Big Lies NEVER lead to good results!

                      You align with Hitler and Trump, then, I assume? See the FACTS as shown below!

                      https://www.salon.com/2021/04/11/trumps-big-lie-and-hitlers-is-this-how-americas-slide-into-totalitarianism-begins/
                      Trump’s Big Lie and Hitler’s: Is this how America’s slide into totalitarianism begins?

                    10. “Oh bullshit! Who pays for the judges’ salaries, the court buildings, and the meager pay of the jurors? MOST of all, WHO pays the cops who come and beat me up and jail me, after I disobey Government Almighty’s commands after Government Almighty finds me “in the wrong” for having hurt someone’s baby feelings, post-Section-230 Crazy-Time?!?! Lawsuit lotteries HURT innocent victims! And you want MORE random lawsuit lotteries!”

                      The reason defamation lawsuits exist is because defamation can and does lead to real harm. If someone lies about me and for instance accuses me of murdering someone than that person’s family might think I’m the culprit and try to kill me to get their revenge. In that case it’s utterly unacceptable for someone to knowingly lie about me and expose me to that kind of danger. Underr the current system we live in, we have laws and we have courts to decide whether laws are broken. In a system where my tax dollars go to paying for a court system, it’s not unreasonable I should be able to actually access it for a redress of legal grievances when someone spreads a law that makes people want to try to ransack my home or kill me and my family or no longer want to do business with me. If one day taxes are declared no longer in order and the courts are abolished, I’ll contend with that fact as the situation determines appropriate. In the meantime it’s not fascistic to seek the help of an arbitrator to address a wrong rather than me going out and putting a bullet in someone’s head to achieve my own justice.

                      “”In the internet era, cheap PC (and communications) power means we CAN have FREE (cost-free to you and me) free speech, as we are enjoying right here and now! Expecting Reason.com to “police” our speech here in detail, at NO new costs to us, is an utter fantasy! What next, you expect pens and papers sellers to “police my content” when I use their products?””

                      Reason.com doesn’t police my speech. They do police the speech of their authors though and they know they can be sued if they don’t. This is not rocket science. When Facebook starts editing away content, they are behaving the same way Reason does with it’s authors, not the way Reason does with it’s comment section.

                      “What next, you expect pens and papers sellers to “police my content” when I use their products?””

                      The people who sell me my stationary don’t dictate to me what I can right with it. I don’t know if BigPaper and Big Oil have been putting you up to writing all these silly and inane comments but my guess is they haven’t. Facebook would be more similar to a pen/paper salesman if it simply made a platform and left the users of said platform to speak freely. They don’t. Facebook acts more like a newspaper than it does a pen and paper company and that much is obvious.

                      “PLEASE stifle your fascist thoughts! “Dictatorial majority”, hello?!?! You convince your dog-pile of 51% of the voters to re-install slavery, then slavery is OK in your mind, isn’t it!?! Power pig!”

                      A Republic is a rule by law. A democracy is a mob rule by majority. Appealing to the courts to uphold the law is not the same as trying to achieve a 51% majority to vote to strip away your rights. Laws exist so that the minority’s rights are codified and protected from the mob, the opposite of the 51% mob rule scenario you’re describing.

                      “You align with Hitler and Trump, then, I assume? See the FACTS as shown below!”

                      I didn’t vote either in to office. My argument for addressing big tech censorship is not at all what Trump was talking about doing. He wanted to give the federal government greater regulatory power over those companies. I just want the same rules that apply to the NYT to apply to Facebook. Constantly plugging your ears and screaming “power pig fascist literally Hitler evil Trump supporter” does not constitute an argument here, especially when my argument is not at all in line with their ideas. You’re an intellectually dishonest and lazy thinker and it shows repeatedly throughout our conversation so far. You frequently fail to address my points, meanwhile repeating variations of the same bizarre nonsequiters.

                    11. “The reason defamation lawsuits exist is because defamation can and does lead to real harm.”

                      Agreed. I never questioned that. Punishing NYT or Facebook or ANYONE else, other than ME, for MY lies, is total injustice! People who can’t or won’t see that, are evil, deluded, power pigs, or suffer from some other DEEP defect in their sense of fairness or justice! I hope that you can “see the Light” some day, with respect to this, but if it is what it takes, for you, to learn the HARD way, then I hope that they punish YOU for what someone ELSE did or said! THEN might you some day learn this simple point? We can always hope, I suppose!

                  2. Writing: “See the FACTS as shown below!” and then citing an opinion article by Salon is not at all a demonstration of “facts.” A) Salon is a rag for progressive retards. B) an opinion is not a fact.

                    1. You didn’t read it, did you? It is mostly FACTS, not an editorial, and you can NOT refute the FACTS listed there!

            3. “The difference is NYT and Reason take responsibility for what their authors write…”

              From the top here, of the comments, what Reason says…

              “We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them.”

              They take ZERO responsibility for what I write! If someone wants to SUE me for MY writings here, they are fully entitled to reclaim the $0.00 that I have been paid for my writings! But the lawyers don’t like that… They want the deep pockets, and to hell with my free speech! Killing Section 230 will make lawyers, power pigs, and Government Almighty happy, and VERY few other folks!

              1. Clearly Reason is using it’s comment section as a platform for free speech while it’s news articles are a separate publication for news stories. Arguably the comment section here and the article above are bifurcated content. Facebook does not bifurcate it’s content at all. It all appears in the same feed of user posts that they have deemed don’t violate their editorial policy even if they are demonstrably defamatory.

        2. If Facebook is going to censor than it simply needs to take full responsibility for what goes on its site. If a Facebook user/author writes something for Facebook that is objectively defamatory, the injured party should be able to petition Facebook to have it removed and, if they don’t, Facebook the publisher and the author of the post are exposed to legal liability in the same way a newspaper that defames anyone else is. This creates a dilemma for Facebook: either stop censoring and go back to being the open platform that it originally claimed it was, or be the publisher that’s responsible for going on their website. If Facebook has the capacity to remove political opinions that create zero legal liability but that they disagree with, then Facebook also has the capacity to respond to complaints that authors on their website are frequently defaming people. Problem is Facebook doesn’t respond to these complaints about defamation and if they were treated like a newspaper, that kind of behavior of ignoring valid legal complaints would only further their legal liability.

          1. Facebook… Or reason.com, or any of BOAT-loads of news and other web sites, do NOT have endless armies of lawyers and bureaucrats to parse what is defamatory and what is not! OR to administer intake of endless bitchings and moanings by those whose baby feelings were hurt by another poster! Are you prepared to pay $5 per post to cover this? The death of Section 230 will (depending on just HOW idiotic the replacement is) will mean the severe crippling or death of a common mode of free speech as we know it today! But power pigs don’t care, do they?

            You fantasize that you and like-minded folks can pussy-grab “the enemy”, take over their free speech, etc., and they will NEVER think of pussy-grabbing you right back? History says “no” to your scheme! What comes around, goes around!

            Even ANIMALS know this! Study “Dunbar’s Number” as a related topic. We keep track of each other, and how each of us treat others, and act accordingly! Politically, even! See https://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/22/science/22angi.html Political Animals (Yes, Animals) By Natalie Angier “Researchers who study highly gregarious and relatively brainy species like rhesus monkeys, baboons, dolphins, sperm whales, elephants and wolves have lately uncovered evidence that the creatures engage in extraordinarily sophisticated forms of politicking, often across large and far-flung social networks.”

            1. Facebook literally claims it has proprietary algorithms to parse content they should remove. To claim they can’t reasonably take responsibility for what goes on their website is frankly bullshit. But if that is their argument, a simple way to retreat from legal liability is to easily go back to a platform roll.

              It’s not “pussy grabbing” or whatever other retarded argument you’re trying to make to say that NYT it’s capable of taking responsibility for defamatory content it publishes and Facebook can be held to the same standard. You don’t get to go out and make up bullshit about other people that is damaging to their reputation, safety and economic viability and get to call yourself legally free from consequence. The same is true for you as an individual as it is for NYT as a newspaper or Facebook acting like a puhlisher but claiming it is a platform. You can be sued, the New York Times can be sued and so can Facebook. That’s it.

              1. “…Facebook acting like a publisher but claiming it is a platform….”

                With power pigs put in charge of micro-managing and mangling the definitions of the same! To replace a clear, simple, even-handed, and Government-Almighty-powers-limiting Section 230 as already exists!

                https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act.shtml

                I hear this a LOT: Either you’re a publisher, or an impartial conduit of posts; you can NOT be both! Well, this is an authoritarian power-pig stance, no matter if you persuade 51% or 97% of your fellow authoritarians, or not! NO inflexible law of physics, chemistry, or yada-yada prohibits Section 230 to straddle the middle!

                You either love animals, or you eat meat… You can NOT do both! All pet owners who eat meat? Their pets will be slaughtered and their pet-meat distributed to the poor! Because I and 51% of the voters said so! And because we are power pigs, and LOOOOOVE to punish people!

                1. “I hear this a LOT: Either you’re a publisher, or an impartial conduit of posts; you can NOT be both! Well, this is an authoritarian power-pig stance, no matter if you persuade 51% or 97% of your fellow authoritarians, or not! NO inflexible law of physics, chemistry, or yada-yada prohibits Section 230 to straddle the middle!

                  You either love animals, or you eat meat… You can NOT do both! All pet owners who eat meat? Their pets will be slaughtered and their pet-meat distributed to the poor! Because I and 51% of the voters said so! And because we are power pigs, and LOOOOOVE to punish people!”

                  See the reason this meat eating 51% argument is dumb is because having an opinion about eating meat is an opinion. It’s not a statement of fact and it’s not a false statement of fact, which is what defamation is. Me going out tomorrow and writing a news article that says it is a fact that Bill Clinton raped 70 children on Epstein’s island even though I have zero evidence of that being true is an example of defamation. You can hopefully see the difference between expressing an opinion about eating meat and making false statements of fact about Bill Clinton do not exist on the same plane of speech.

  42. This is a good content having well-scripted, appealing written content that may be brimming with initial and wise sights

  43. Reason should ban Gillespie for life. He’s a cretin.

  44. How cute – Nick is as utterly braindead as farcebook’s oversight board. . .

    Hrmm. . . And here I thought that one needed a functional cognitive matrix in order to be a writer. . . Silly me.

Please to post comments