J. Kb sent me this for the Friday Funnies, but I believe it deserves its own post.
I am going to guess that about 80% of the people that say are Libertarians in all of its variations, are so because it is a fashionable thing to say and not because they actually are Libertarians. They memorize a few slogans and regurgitate them during discussions as if those are the last words anybody need to hear and anything else is just a waste of time.
One of those slogans is that private companies can do what they want. This has come up with the brutal wave of censorships against the Right and even Libertarians from the Social Media & Internet Monopoly/Oligopoly and so-called Libertarians jump to defend them because as private companies, they cannot be touched according to the dogma of what they think is Libertarianism.
When you violate inherent rights, you do not get a pass because you do not belong to the government or were elected for office. You do not get a amnesty if you commit mala in se crimes because you trade in the New York Exchange. It is not private property that is evil, it is unchecked monopoly that causes problems.
Seven years ago, I reviewed a book which covered a novel (for me back then) principle: Monopoly on Killing. In the book, it rallied against Stand Your Ground and Self Defense by stating that it was only the government the one entity that could legally do homicide. We as gun owners, obviously know that is asinine and deadly for all the implications that has. An unchecked and unopposed government can bring death as it pleases and does not need to be right under that monopoly. And the same slide to departing from serving people applies for any other aspect of life we do not have checks and balances in that monopoly power. Post office anyone?
And if the government, full of fallible people, will manage to screw up a monopoly and turn it against the people it should serve, why should we expect that people in a private monopoly will do impeccable and without any violations to fellow people just because they have the Seal of Private Property? Absolute power and the rest of the quote comes to mind.
I expect disagreements in the comments, but please politely and without slogans. I am sick of them by now with this being election times.
The easiest way to shoot down the “it’s private property, they can do what they want” is fires. Let’s say that I am tired of my employees taking undocumented and unauthorized smoke breaks, so I chain shut all of my fire exits. Private property, right?
What if I decide that I don’t want to maintain my fire suppression equipment? What if I decide to make it a requirement that all females on my property have to fellate me in order to leave? The standard libertarian answer is that a property owner is still liable for damages that they cause through decisions that harm others.
What about a homeowner who decides to play death metal at a volume rivaling a space shuttle launch? Or shining billion candlepower lights into neighbors’ homes? The standard libertarian answer is that your property rights stop when they infringe on the property rights of others.
In the case of the social media people that spawned this discussion, they are well within their rights to control what is posted or not posted on their property (website). However, this also means that they cannot claim that they are merely a platform for the ideas of others. Once they inject themselves into the discussion by deciding whose voice is heard, the opinions on that website are no longer the opinions of others, but the opinions of the website owner.
That makes them liable for whatever is said. If that happens to be libelous, slanderous, or inciting people to commit murder or other crimes, they should be held accountable.
Nicely stated Divemedic. My issue is that there is no law against what they are doing. For all of your examples I believe there are specific laws requiring or forbidding the actions you listed.
The 1st limits government. I would like to see it applied to social media, I’m not sure how to do it legally. The best I can think of is for those socal media companies that monitor, editorialize, and censor to lose common carrier status.
And then I want us to think on what that would mean to Miguel and GFZ? Would it mean that we were suddenly flooded with troll postings and if the were put in timeout Miguel gets charged?
I can always announce and shut down comment. This blog has always been about Me and J.Kb sharing our ideas, not location where you can talk about cat food recipe and post your vacation photos.
I believe we need to go back to the era of IRC and Usenet or something similar: Self policed locations for the exchange of ideas without Big Brother (Private of otherwise) butting in to tell you that word is bad.
I don’t think any new legislation is needed, but I think it has become abundantly clear to anyone playing the slightest bit of attention that they now have editorial control and should be subject to libel laws.
That ought to get their finger off the scale pretty quick.
If that doesn’t work…treat them like utilities.
I used to know the “L”ibertarian candidate for Texas Attorney General. She was an “informal” midwife. As a group, the “L”ibertarian coffee klatch and knitting society could not organize a two car funeral procession.They claim to have influenced the Republican party during the 80’s and 90’s. Maybe so. But today, they are toothless as a “party” and will never win a race unless a law is passed that “L”ibertarians can get elected to office if they get 2% of the vote.
I don’t want to do this. I REALLY don’t want to do this. I just KNOW there’s going to be unintended consequences if we bring the hammer down on the Proggy Social Media Complex.
But damn it, our hand’s being forced here. They’re basically acting as an arm of the Democratic Party.
How can I argue with you when you are pretty damn close to correct? I can answer that, I can’t.
You want Biden or Trump to enforce laws micromanaging big tech media coverage of Biden or Trump? I’m sure Biden or Trump could never twist that to their own personal advantage.
The government fans here start by pretending the government they want to use to deliver justice isn’t already full of crooks.
Stop whining and present a solution.
Note that I didn’t say the government should produce a solution. I said that the government should simply allow the people who are harmed by the acts of the social media companies to hold those companies legally liable for their actions and stop letting them use the “we are just a platform” as a shield when they plainly are not acting as “just a platform” and have publicly stated the same.
As an aside, if a liberal is defending big tech censoring conservatives using the “private companies can do whatever they want” logic, remind them that it’s also ok then for bakeries to refuse to bake wedding cakes for homosexual weddings, it’s ok for businesses to decide to not hire LGBT people, it’s ok for businesses to not allow muslims in the door, it’s ok for businesses to outright ban all registered democrats. Private companies can do whatever they want, right?
HP: agree. Remember, however, if (d) did not have double standards, they wouldn’t have any standards at all.
The human immune system should identify and remove all forms of cancer.
Steel should be strong enough to build a tower to orbit.
Some clever gearhead should be able to invent a carburetor which gets 100 MPG using water for fuel.
It is futile to wish about what a government “should” do, if you don’t have a practical plan to make that government behave that way.
That’s a pretty weak argument.