I believe that businesses have the right to regulate their own policies without interference from the government. This was true with the bakers trying to control the message that left their bakeries, and it is true with social media. What is interesting is how the Trumpublicans and the MAGA sure do love their big government forcing itself into these matters to control the behavior of these entrepreneurs these days. Very dangerous times.
I vaguely recall a world where those on the left opposed government interference in minimum wage requirements, health insurance, diversity initiatives, work rules, and similar intrusive initiatives. And I recall a world where those on the left objected to abuse of monopoly power. Did I dream it all?
Heymike
2 years ago
I find it strange how claims of election fraud were never problematic in the past; but now they are. You can still make claims about 2016; but not 2020.
Similar to censoring Hunters laptop…it’s just a double standard. You can make any claim you want as long as it favors Dorsey’s chosen candidate.
I’m not a fan of Trump, but he should be under the same rules as everyone else.
Felix_Mish
2 years ago
Break up Big Tech? Har, har. How? Doesn’t make any sense in a winner-takes-all-world. And, anyway, the US government, which does not have jurisdiction over Big Tech, is incentivized to make monopolies in any regulated industry.
What’s interesting is that Big Tech has not expanded their anti-spam infrastructure to give their users a selection of filtering options. I’d expect governments to require such options from Big Tech. BTW, I think you can filter Facebook with a browser extension. My filter may still work.
So, wait for Google to have a “My Bubble” feature.
thimk
2 years ago
I’m going to invoke my constitution rights . I will avoid media that doesn’t present a balanced viewpoint and vote with my mouse. When did news get so opinionated anyways ? The big tech media players are losing viewers to alt news sites . Additionally courts block Desantis censorship law which had an election spin on it . Unless the current legal framework is changed these lawsuits will go nowhere . a few fragments thoughts.
When did the news begin to blend news and opinion? In my opinion, it started in the 1980s, when Republicans weaponized AM radio. Democrats tried to come out with their own networks, but they failed, so the people on TV became more aggressive about blending liberal opinion into the TV news. If it’s Ok for someone on radio to blend opinion and news, why is it not OK for CNN to do the same? Obviously, it is OK. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Or, maybe it turns out that it’s bad for both the goose and the gander. Look what it has done to the country. Blending news and opinion is bad journalistic practice, in my opinion, and it has led us to a very divided country.
Felix_Mish
2 years ago
Apparently the 1st amendment applies to non-governmental entities if the government simply offloads its gag rules to such entities. Bunch of supreme court rulings starting back in the 1800’s. So, no, the US government can’t, wink, wink, suggest that some social media company gag someone who the US government wants silenced.
Is that the case here? I’m inclined to doubt it. Tech companies, like most companies, are ruled by their employees. And tech company’s employees are international and/or not trained in 1st amendment culture. (Remember “safe places” and “free speech zones”? That’s the world any schooled American under 40 was raised in.) It’s no surprise that tech companies, staffed by young, schooled people, are left wing. These employees don’t need to be told to muzzle people who say things they, the employees, have been taught are bad things.
Webej
2 years ago
Big Tech has been illegally deputized as the censorship arm of the U.S. government. This should alarm you no matter your political persuasion. It is unacceptable, unlawful and un-American.
Regardless, the above is true. The security state does an end run on constitutional and legal protections through its cozy relationships (and secret court orders) with Big Tech which is dependent on the State for lucrative orders and good will
Jackula
2 years ago
Haphazardly is correct. I’ve even had posts blocked on this site for violating rules and can’t figure out why. Posts were primarily about Covid. Otherwise good take re Trump. However, the big tech social media sites have also blocked posts with non-violent politically incorrect topics like valid discussions about the origins of Covid ,I.E. the free exchange of important data.
IANAL but I suspect the constitutional points are essentially correct. That’s very unfortunate.
Trouble is, nowadays, constitutional rights of free speech are almost worthless if they cannot be expressed/enjoyed other than in-person. After all, it’s not the 19th century, when almost everything had to be done in-person, any more.
For technical reasons, the phone companies didn’t get built around automated censorship in the early 20th century; it simply wasn’t yet possible. But things have changed. So now we have a tiny cabal of super-rich folks censoring everything that people can say to each other *using the technical means people now use*.
This is little or no improvement over Soviet-style control. We have Big Tech as (mostly) the Pravda and Izvestia of the left wing of one particular party. This may suit some hypersensitive folks very well, but it doesn’t suit democracy at all, since democracy requires free and open debate. Then again, freedom in that (or any) sense entails a certain amount of responsibility, and lately our societies are afflicted with large factions who prefer dictatorship to freedom because above all else, they value non-responsibility.
And no, anything as gigantic as Google or Facebook or Twitter, etc., is not and can never be a “community” (nor a “family”) in any meaningful sense. No, it’s merely that “community guidelines” sounds so much better to the hypersensitive than “political censorship and control”.
Back in the pre-internet day people put their thoughts on paper and published it or had someone else do so if they were agreeable. Otherwise they did it in person or raved in the town square at passers-by. Last I checked all those options remain quite viable today. And there is nothing at all to stop you from co-locating a server in a data center and blogging to your hearts content.
Curious-Cat
2 years ago
The first amendment says “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech…” It does not protect one from the consequences from exercising the right to free speech. I wonder if some of the previous commenters actually read the first amendment. I am legally protected if I call you a pedophile, but I am not protected from your suing me for liable.
Problem is people are abusing the “consequences” argument to shut down very reasonable views these days. Curiously, would you have supported the employment consequences of being on McCarthy’s blacklists?
Doug78
2 years ago
I contest certain points.
What’s It Really About?
Trump’s lawsuit has nothing to do with the Constitution. Rather, it has everything to do with the Court of Public Opinion.
Blocked from Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, Trump is no longer in the limelight. He desperately wants back in.
Without access to social media, especially with mainstream media ignoring him almost totally, Trump’s fundraising ability is crippled.
Point 1) The suit has everything to do with the Court of Public Opinion. So? What’s wrong with that? Biden’s lawsuit against Georgia was for Public Opinion and not made to win. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
Point 2) Trump desperately wants back in the limelight. Surely true but show me a public figure who doesn’t like to be in the limelight. It goes with the job. The real question should be does he need it to remain popular? No he doesn’t. His popularity is intact and more importantly his ideas have gained supremacy within the Republican leadership and rank and file.
Point 3) Trump’s fundraising needs mainstream media. That is pretty much the opposite. Mainstream media needs Trump for funding if I look at how their viewership is doing which is why they would love it if he came back. If he runs he will have enough funding. Make no mistake about that. Money is plentiful and sources are more diverse than before. Also there is a disconnect between funding levels and electoral success.
Mish, Doug 78 is more on point than you are. Big tech operates as a good old fashioned Trust and that is bad for everyone. Many times their “censorship” misplaced and misguided. They have been shown to be poor judges of what is factual.
They all hate Trump, that is obvious enough. So what? They hate Ebola, does mean we are not allowed to talk about it? There are two important questions: where to draw the line and who draws it.
You said it is about funding: he wants more. Really? Were his accounts blocked to cut off his fundraising on the excuse of something else (about which you speculate)? That seems very likely given the partisan nature of the policies implemented, and not just against Trump.
Hiding behind a “we are a private service” excuse while pretending to be a place for public discussion is disingenuous. Clearly there is a case to be made for “state capture” in the South African sense of the social media. If the “private” fora cannot abide by the notion of the First Amendment they should, because of their collaborative and biased nature, be declared public institutions. Why, because their collective behaviour is intolerable in a civilised nation. It is the behaviour of a reprehensible authoritarian faction-based social order that will end of civil and international war as the factions vie for control.
Oh Orangeblossom if big tech all hated Trump he never would have been elected in the first place.
They are a place for public discussion and they set out general guidelines/parameters for what they consider acceptable in the Terms of Service. That is no different than any other organization, eg a church will boot you for saying blasphemous things.
Casual_Observer2020
2 years ago
This is why antitrust laws need to be enforced again in America. Not because of Trump but because of the power they have. This goes for likes of Amazon, WalMart and others that have such a dominant monopolistic position, that capital no longer even enters these segments in order to compete. Also a lot of these companies are double dealing or more by spying on their customers and also selling their own products on the platforms they run. The only Presidential candidate that I saw that said to breakup these companies was Elizabeth Warren. She is hated in some circles but she turned out to be right and still is a proponent of this. It is past time to start enforcing antitrust laws that are on the books no matter where it leads.
Breaking them up won’t work. None of them have a monopoly on their own. They collectively have a monopoly in that they all share the same political views. Breaking Facebook up into two parts will just create 2 left leaning entities. I don’t even know how you could breakup Facebook or Twitter.
It’s the inherent conundrum of companies that reach quasi-monopolistic positions. As private companies they have the right to do what they want as long as it isn’t illegal yet when they dominate a market to such an extent that competition becomes just a joke then they make enemies of a lot of people and after a while nobody likes them because they piss off everybody. I love investing in monopolies because they make so much money because if they are good and crush potential competitors while they are small they can charge what they want.
davebarnes2
2 years ago
“If you are a Trump supporter most likely you strongly agree with him.”
No.
1. Fat Donnie from Queens did not write the piece. It is too well constructed.
2. His followers cannot read/understand the bigly words used in the piece.
I promise you, neither you, nor I, nor anyone commenting is smart enough to cast aspersions on millions of Americans because of how they vote. It is a convenient and evidence-free way to make oneself feel superior though.
RonJ
2 years ago
I read recently that evolutionary biologist Bret Weinstein was demonetized by Youtube.
Parrot the official narrative, or else.
KyleW
2 years ago
The 1st Amendment does not guarantee a social media account. It restrains the government, not private companies. People have such little respect for private property these days though that I wouldn’t be surprised if they think it applies to private companies. Maybe he should start a blog, lol.
I am not at all a fan of Trump, but “In A Corporatist System Of Government, Corporate Censorship Is State Censorship.”
And I know that this will be (and has already started being) used against the genuine left wing posters.
Zardoz
2 years ago
He’s got junior out begging for donations, presumably so he can use them to not pay his lawyers again. Can’t imagine what kind of clown would work for him.
So I’m thinking he wants attention, and to scam the mouth breathers out of their disability money one more time.
Most litigious ex president ever.
KidHorn
2 years ago
Being banned for violating a posting rule is a way to block free speech. Facebook, Twitter can state no one can post X. Where X can be anything they don’t want posted. And they do that frequently. Doesn’t matter if facts back or don’t back X.
As far as private companies can do whatever they want…
What if Walmart bought a local power company and then shut off power to amazon server farms. Would that be OK?
This is pretty amusing, given how easy it is to get banned from any forum that markets itself as ‘conservative’.
The pinnacle is link to reddit.com… they won’t even let you post until you prove your loyalty, and you’ll get banned for even expressing mild doubt about how awesome trump is.
Fair enough… you don’t have the god-given right to use other people’s computers. You’re free to stand up your own server.
That’s the point. None of these places is preventing people from speaking. They just aren’t amplifying it.
The Tantrum Toddler had his own little site for a while. Without the free promotion twitter and facebook offer, it went nowhere, and he shut it down. Apparently most of his admirers can’t figure out how to find a blog that isn’t facebook or twitter. Gettr was built for him, but he won’t go on it unless they disallow criticism of him.
… and yet trump was able to stand up his own server, and can say anything he wants. They aren’t preventing anyone from speaking. They just aren’t letting them use their megaphone.
And seriously… TWITTER? He’s crying because he can’t be on TWITTER? What a freakin’ pansy.
“What if Walmart bought a local power company and then shut off power to amazon server farms. Would that be OK?”
Well, that would be one corporate entity against another. So, it will go to the courts. It is when *people* are screwed by corporations, that there is a hue and cry that people are greedy and anti-capitalism etc. etc. Notice how trial lawyers are vilified and hated at every turn? In contrast, corporate lawyers are fine, and the biggest ones among them are treated like stars.
Stay Informed
Subscribe to MishTalk
You will receive all messages from this feed and they will be delivered by email.
What is interesting is how the Trumpublicans and the MAGA sure do love their big government forcing itself into these matters to control the behavior of these entrepreneurs these days. Very dangerous times.
What’s It Really About?
And I know that this will be (and has already started being) used against the genuine left wing posters.
Well, that would be one corporate entity against another. So, it will go to the courts. It is when *people* are screwed by corporations, that there is a hue and cry that people are greedy and anti-capitalism etc. etc. Notice how trial lawyers are vilified and hated at every turn? In contrast, corporate lawyers are fine, and the biggest ones among them are treated like stars.