To which, although I've noted problems with the way Popehat swings his particular version of semi-absolutism on the First Amendment, there's his response:
Then there's my response:It's ridiculous to think we can find alternatives to big online media gatekeepers like Yahoo, Geocities, and AOL.— QHatSecretMessages (@Popehat) August 7, 2018
Re FB/Google/Apple & Alex Jones We worried about AOL and Yahoo 15 years ago. If FB/Ggl/Appl become more powerful, they can be further regulated. BUT! libertarians of various stripes might not like that. So, while we're at it, we can junk both Citizens United and Buckley v Valero.
— @realDonaldTrump 🌻 (@SocraticGadfly) August 7, 2018
And, with that, I'm targeting Glenn, who's worried about Citizens United but not nearly enough to call for its repeal, and doesn't even care about Buckley.
That's called petard-hoisting, Glenn. (Oh, Ken, I'll put that on you at some point. Unless you actually like people yelling fire in a crowded theater, you're not a 1A absolutist, either.)
Beyond THAT, Infowars is hoist by its own petard:
You can't make this up. InfoWars' own terms of service say: "You are a guest here. It is not censorship if you violate the rules and your post is deleted. All civilizations have rules and if you violate them you can expect to be ostracized from the tribe." (h/t @alexkasprak) pic.twitter.com/8hy8NyLN0H— Oliver Darcy (@oliverdarcy) August 7, 2018
But, let's move onward.
I don't need Reason to tell me (thus, no link, Ken) that while the trio can ban Jones and Infowars, the grounds are wishy-washy.
But, neither you nor Reason will say, contra your tweet, that late-stage capitalism is involved.
These folks (supposedly, Apple hasn't banned Jones on all platforms yet, anyway), probably saw some small threat of "boycott" and figured that would lose more money than gaining any money from Alex and his neo-nutbar fellow travelers.
As "they" say, Effbook is a "mature platform" in the US. Ditto for YouTube and various Apple sites.
On the third hand, is this:
On the third hand, is this:
Mark Zuckerberg told the Senate that @Facebook has a responsibility to its users as a news curator.— Walker Bragman (@WalkerBragman) August 3, 2018
Today, Facebook removed the video I posted about the US-backed bombing of Hodeidah, #Yemen, which contained graphic footage of its aftermath.
Another corp. sanitizing news. pic.twitter.com/d5WTL70sVw
Facebook ultimately is a late-stage capitalist platform. But that's what drove Citizens United, too, Glenn. So, you're kind of petard-hoist.
To summarize, libertarian types risk hoisting on one of several petards.
One is when saying that Facebook (synecdoche for the group) is doing it wrong. You admit it has the power to do this. Thanks, that's all we need there.
Two is admitting Facebook has gotten too big to be allowed to do this on its own. You're admitting it's a public utility or similar, and that it needs government regulation or similar. Well, on the second half of that sentence, you lost your libertarian card if, like Ted Cruz seemingly, you think it needs to be regulated. If you reject that fork, but accept the first clause, then let's bounce hypotheticals off your head as to how close to First Amendment absolutism you want to go before you might step in. The Weekly Standard goes exactly there by asking if you want porn on social media.
Three is more muddled. It's having the feeling that Facebook's actions are problematic but not being sure what else to do next. If you're an allegedly rigorous-thinking libertarian, that's a problem there.
Beyond that, as Alex Madrigal notes (and others have observed on Twitter) the ban is about as leaky as most newspapers' online paywalls. (It's kind of sad that's my reference, but it's a perfect comparison.) That too is presumably deliberate, and late-stage capitalistic. A "ban" that's more of a shadow ban to appease some people. Hell, Facebook probably even ran an algorithm about just how much "banning" to do.
Google? It just lets Jones keep running on Google+, showing how little it now values that site. Plus, none of these people have banned Jones' British flunky, Paul Watson.
Final note? RationalWiki has a great point about Jones. If he really is blowing the cover of the New World Order time after time, why is he still alive? Why hasn't he been assassinated?
To summarize, libertarian types risk hoisting on one of several petards.
One is when saying that Facebook (synecdoche for the group) is doing it wrong. You admit it has the power to do this. Thanks, that's all we need there.
Two is admitting Facebook has gotten too big to be allowed to do this on its own. You're admitting it's a public utility or similar, and that it needs government regulation or similar. Well, on the second half of that sentence, you lost your libertarian card if, like Ted Cruz seemingly, you think it needs to be regulated. If you reject that fork, but accept the first clause, then let's bounce hypotheticals off your head as to how close to First Amendment absolutism you want to go before you might step in. The Weekly Standard goes exactly there by asking if you want porn on social media.
Three is more muddled. It's having the feeling that Facebook's actions are problematic but not being sure what else to do next. If you're an allegedly rigorous-thinking libertarian, that's a problem there.
Beyond that, as Alex Madrigal notes (and others have observed on Twitter) the ban is about as leaky as most newspapers' online paywalls. (It's kind of sad that's my reference, but it's a perfect comparison.) That too is presumably deliberate, and late-stage capitalistic. A "ban" that's more of a shadow ban to appease some people. Hell, Facebook probably even ran an algorithm about just how much "banning" to do.
Google? It just lets Jones keep running on Google+, showing how little it now values that site. Plus, none of these people have banned Jones' British flunky, Paul Watson.
Final note? RationalWiki has a great point about Jones. If he really is blowing the cover of the New World Order time after time, why is he still alive? Why hasn't he been assassinated?
No comments:
Post a Comment