If you are not familiar with what should have been one of the biggest October Surprises in history, the New York Post broke a story with emails from a laptop owned by Hunter Biden that he abandoned at a computer repair company, that showed proof that Joe Biden was aware of and complicit in Hunder Biden’s pay-for-play schemes to profit off his dad’s position as VP. The laptop also contained at least one sex tape of Hunter Biden banging a hooker and smoking crack.
Facebook and Twitter axed this story. They banned anyone who shared the link, including the Press Secretary herself.
Today was the day that the libertarians lost the debate on regulating big tech
— Will Chamberlain (@willchamberlain) October 14, 2020
This is 100% accurate. In the early days of the internet, a hands-off, low regulation approach allowed the internet to flourish.
But that lack of regulation now has led to the creation of monopolies with an ideological bend that is now more stifling than anything the government could have come up with.
If the Government had started banning anyone who shared a link to a news article, a Judge would have gotten an injunction against that on First Amendment grounds by lunch. It would have been that cut-and-dry a case. But because two private websites that host two-thirds of real-time internet communication between them are doing it, it’s a little harder.
I believe in the free market until it stops being a free market, which clearly the internet has become in some circles (social media).
Libertarians have essentially become economic anarchists, where any regulation is bad because it is regulation.
This is where the Libertarians become the enemy of liberty and alienate limited government Conservatives.
Us: “You mean you are fine with three companies that host almost all real-time internet communication and the majority of internet searches burry a major story about the corruption of a politician they agree with?”
Libertarians: “They are private sector so the First Amendment doesn’t apply to them, stop trying to regulate business, you Fascist.”
I believe as soon as a private communications platform has gained enough users that their policies can impact public opinion it’s no longer simply a private communications platform, and its policy must be constrained by 1st amendment protections for its users.
So, call it 5% of the population?
Reason I mention this, is because there should be a clear demarcation point if it’s to become a law.
It’s good to keep in mind that libertarians are no more a uniform think-alike group than any other.
In this particular instance, there’s an interesting point brought up by libertarian author Neil Smith: a corporation is a government creature. After all, it isn’t just an association of private individuals — it is granted special protections as a legal construct by the government, protections that do not apply to the individuals that make up the corporation. Because of this, Constitutional provisions that limit what government can do should be applied to corporations.
On left wing company censorship, there’s an editorial in today’s WSJ about another example that just happened: Amazon censoring a documentary about the Michael Brown (Ferguson) shooting by Shelby Steele.
Fundamentally disagree with your analysis. The lack of regulation didn’t grant tech giants a monopoly. Government granted privileges did such as section 230 and sales tax exemptions for 2 decades (in the case of Amazon).
Every monopoly has been part of the government or they had exclusive legal privileges.
That said, many tech company execs belong in prison with their assets seized.
Interestingly, I posted about the libertarians at the same time you did. 100% agree. Twitter, Google, and Facebook are the new Gilded Age robber barons and some trust busting is well in order.
Holy shit! Oh wait nothing to see here its only run of the mill graft /sarc
There was a brief exchange on the subject of current litigation examining if 1a extends to private corps last night during the confirmation hearings, it will be interesting to see where that goes.
I think it is fair to say of you can be used to influence and election, you are now onto the realm of protected speech.
Build your own Largest and Most Powerful Monopoly That Ever Existed In the History of the Earth, Peasant.
Agree with your libertarian assessment, but the real problem is not regulation, or lack of it. It is proper application of regulations.
Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act (47 USC §230) provides protection to internet providers from prosecution due to content from third party providers. In other words, you cannot sue Facebook because Jane Doe posted a libelous story about you. They are the carrier, not the content provider.
However, Section 230 protections cease to exist when the carrier starts to controls the content to an extent beyond simply preventing criminal action. It is OK for Facebook to remove pornographic content, but not OK for them to remove content because it comes from the incorrect side of the political aisle.
This has never really been about regulating big tech. The regulations exist, and for the most part, big tech is good with them. It is about removing protections from big tech when they violate the regulations. If Facebook/Twitter/Instagram/Google/etc… want to be a defacto content provider, they will lose their protections under Section 230, and all the rules applicable to TV and Radio stations will apply.
I think the companies that banned that discussion gave up their 230 status as a platform not a publisher yesterday.
The question remains will anyone spend the money to sue them and take it through the course all the way to the Supremes.
If it can get cert…. hopefully the chances of that are looking up with younger justices that have that understand technology a little better; especially since they have children in the prime age range of all of that tech.
So, you want Biden or Trump to execute the laws regulating social media coverage of Biden or Trump?
It is an error to change the definition of the word “government” in the middle of an argument. One of your definitions of “government” is the actual government, containing a lot of crooks like Biden. Another of your definitions of “government” is a fantasy dreamed up by a Boy Scout and painted by Norman Rockwell. You propose to regulate real-government using fantasy-government. Except, fantasy-government is a fantasy, and doesn’t exist.