Many American are quick to say that freedom of speech is only a right that can be asserted against government, so there's no right — or even an interest in freedom of speech — that can be asserted against a private company like Twitter. But the German Chancellor speaks of "fundamental rights."
January 11, 2021
"German Chancellor Angela Merkel considers it 'problematic' that Twitter would toss President Trump off its social media platform..."
"'This fundamental right can be intervened in, but according to the law and within the framework defined by legislators — not according to a decision by the management of social media platforms,' Merkel spokesman Steffen Seibert told reporters in Berlin.
'Seen from this angle, the chancellor considers it problematic that the accounts of the U.S. president have now been permanently blocked,' he added."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
155 comments:
People are quick to say that rights go as far as they want them to and no further. It's what happens when you have no set of principles underlying you views. Bring up the societal value of free speech and these leftists who think rights come at the benevolence of government don't hesitate to reach for libertarian dogma because that's what suits their needs in the moment.
Many American are quick to say that freedom of speech is only a right that can be asserted against government
It can also be asserted against those the government empowers and subsidizes.
Is Twitter a publisher? Awesome! They can publish whoever and whatever they want.
But they are on the hook for everything they publish. No Section 230 protection for them.
They're not a publisher?
Then they don't get to kick people off because they don't like their politics
Agreed. Fundamental rights are important. It’s why they were enshrined in our constitution
But what does it tell Merkel that it happened? She, too, better behave the way the US tech companies want her to. What if the US tech companies had discovered this tool they had in time to convince us support for Brexit was a conspiracy theory? That was conventional wisdom for years!!!
Too bad the techs couldn’t have shut down supporters of it before they go another vote!
"the German Chancellor speaks of "fundamental rights.""
Angela more concerned about "fundamental" rights than prog tech. Imagine that.
Of course, under prog hegemony the most fundamental right is to be shut up.
When even a former commie like Merkel understands free speech better than Our Betters...
What hellscape is this, in which Angela Merkel is a voice of sanity? To coin a phrase.
What if:
Google took away Gmail from those who had wrongthink content?
What if they took away other services because of the content of our Gmails?
Amazon hosts a lot of servers. And Amazon has gotten in trouble in a lot of countries for not paying enough in taxes. Who holds the power over who here?
Twitter and other social media platforms have seen massive growth thanks in large part to their unusual civil immunity, and thus they have been in bed with government for many years. Government support has been crucial and brought us to where we are today.
Their platforms aren’t really private. If they do not manage/police their platforms pursuant to principles that mirror the First Amendment, the government should immediately cut off all support and ramp up legislative/regulatory scrutiny.
And the EU laws on anti-trust are different than the U.S., and in some cases more strict. Twitter may have shown in this a US-centric management myopia, and actually have severely hurt itself globally.
If you as an American are concerned that a business entity made such a drastic decision and apparently has the power to make it stick, you may be able to imagine the concern outside of the US that it was a *US* business entity that made such a decision?
Blogger MayBee said...
What if:
Google took away Gmail from those who had wrongthink content?
I only use Gmail for spam and other stuff I don't read. God knows what is in those 250,000 unread emails. I am moving to MeWe as long as they are not deplatformed.
I meant to note this earlier, but the companies currently involved in banning Trump, Trump supporters, and any other company that might allow those people to comment on the Internet; those companies are already facing anti-trust regulations in the EU and elsewhere. I'm fairly certain their actions over the weekend will not help their cases.
"EU files antitrust charges against Amazon." (Nov 2020)
"Google now faces several antitrust challenges around the world, including three government lawsuits filed in the U.S. in the last two months alone." (Dec 2020)
"States, feds file antitrust suits demanding breakup of Facebook." (Dec 2020)
Apple is already facing antitrust pressure around the world. (Jun 2020)
All links go to left leaning news organizations, for those inclined to suggest this is being Trumped up by radicals.
Many American are quick to say that freedom of speech is only a right that can be asserted against government
No, the question of First Amendment protection can only be asserted against the government.
Freedom of speech is inalienable.
The right of free speech is a moral claim. It does not arise from the first amendment. The first amendment is a limitation on government, not the private sector, but it represents a moral claim fundamental to our understanding of freedom. This right is a right in Canada and Australia, in the sense that they have the same moral understanding, without our arrangement of governmental powers. The government has a right to protect our rights through legislation, and we have the right to insist upon the protection of our rights from monopolists.
I've heard Parler has just sued Amazon in a federal court.
The private enterprise defense doesn't always prevail.
Woolworth was a private enterprise, and they let blacks come into the store. (Anyone can come in - just like Twitter.)
But when they restricted blacks from sitting at the lunch counter, it crossed a line.
Twitter is now saying that anyone can come in, but only certain people are allowed to sit at the lunch counter.
So it Twitter goes bankrupt it must be bailed out?
They're NewAge Nazis, and she knows it.
Democrats have contrived ways to subvert free and fair elections with the assistance of the tech/SM companies and now run all 3 branches of government.
And now you think they will work to hobble the companies that provide them with this distinct advantage?
Hell, they've got an impeachment to conduct! There's no fn way.
Hey @JoeBiden and @KamalaHarris, Good Luck telling other countries they can’t silence, censor or shut down their political opponents.
This is a crisis for the American brand and you are celebrating the (temporary) power that comes with it. -Richard Grenell
One thing:
Even if I might agree with Merkel, I have a hundred year rule, so I won't be listening to anything the Germans have to say about freedom and democracy until May 2045.
The most troubling overreaction was Apple. Apple now requires apps in its app store to censor users. In other words, if you want an uncensored social media platform you need to buy an entirely different phone.
It's crazy. There is a dystopian version of our future where lefties use one type of device and conservatives use a completely different type of device. A partisan schism at the circuit board level.
It's a complete crack down on any and all speech that isn't pro-Democrat
Starting at the foundation and working outward, there needs to be a whole new set of designated public utilities:
1. Maybe some or major fiberoptic trunk routs, but absolutely certainly the last mile routs to homes need to be designed utilities. It should not be possible for private companies to cut your home off from access to the internet.
2. Maybe web service farms like Amazon Web Services, but more importantly, probably Apple and Google's mobile OS platforms. It is now economically infeasible to have of expect more than 2 or 3 mobile operating systems/application eco-systems. That's the very basis for us having only one gas or electric line to each house, or one trash pickup service.
3. And what applies for mobile operating and application eco-systems, should also apply to the desktop. Microsoft should not be able to cut you off from operating on their Windows 10 OS.
4. Other critical layers in the network stack should also be designated utilities, and regulated. That might include a large part of the Facebooks layered stack of network services.
Just brainstorming, for those interested and from a tech background
If you understand the character of the Democrat Party, we've been living with for decades, none of the underhanded, low-life, back-stabbing, bullshit-and-sexually-predatory things they've been doing would come as a surprise.
Why storming the Capital - because the Democrats are corrupt (Hillary alleging, and her friends joking on TV without evidence, the President is a traitor and Putin's puppet who was peeing on hookers in Russian hotel rooms, for three years, as the entire world tore itself apart over it) and still want to capitalize on wrong - confuses me.
Matt Yglesias says Germany heavily censors its internet so Merkel is being pretty hypocritical.
So does letting them get away with banning him on Twitter.
Twitter needs to be banned for being on the other side.
Many American are quick to say that freedom of speech is only a right that can be asserted against government,
The same people who demanded government control over network infrastructure through “net neutrality” out of fear that the networks might suppress some points of view BTW, almost to a man.
If the EU and ever other major player isn’t already forming plans to reign in these tech giants or replace them completely will local version, I will be amazed, and for the most compelling of all reasons to a politician, jealousy of their own power and prerogatives. I think that may be why Twitter shares fell today.
"I have a hundred year rule, so I won't be listening to anything the Germans have to say about freedom and democracy until May 2045.”
The Germans know a thing or two about how total government control cam be seized by jumping on flimsy pretexts, and you would be foolish to ignore them.
YeS !!!! The thread I'd been waiting for: Twitter does not pay taxes, so they aren't just any ol' generic private company. The Gov tax breaks and perks they and all other Tech giants have received, does indeed subject them to First Amendment scrutiny.
The Internet is a public resource, like electricity. This makes Twitter much like the public utilities (Edison) that take public resources Internet/Electricity and bring to the public. Edison is a private company, but it can't do anything it wants. The Airlines are a private company, but they can't do whatever they want.
Churches don't pay taxes...... they can't do whatever they want.
The former communist is acutely aware of what these people will do. In the name of "Good Government."
For a bunch of people who regularly disdain any kind of government regulation or overreach, you don't seem to realize that "leave me alone" is a double edged sword.
Readering said...
"So (if) Twitter goes bankrupt it must be bailed out?"
Why? They have no union members that would benefit.
D.D. Driver said...
The most troubling overreaction was Apple. Apple now requires apps in its app store to censor users. In other words, if you want an uncensored social media platform you need to buy an entirely different phone.
It's crazy.
You're so cute, DD. This is what you voted for? Why are you complaining now?
The techs and press did a dry run of all this with Hunter Biden's laptop. You still opposed Trump in Nov.
You voted for it, now you're getting it good and hard. How about you STFU?
Freder Frederson said...
For a bunch of people who regularly disdain any kind of government regulation or overreach, you don't seem to realize that "leave me alone" is a double edged sword.
Well, I think everyone disdains government overreach, it's the defining of it that's the problem.
But what are you saying here about the double edged sword? Maybe you are just too pithy for me.
@Quayle
Government directly regulating the internet is pretty bad idea. You want the federal government--know controlled entirely by the dems--regulating what you can do on the internet? I don't.
My preferred solution would be to make Section 230 immunity conditioned on the adoption of to-be-designated free speech principles including viewpoint neutrality (a sort of "First Amendment Lite" for online service providers). Companies that want to preserve their 230 immunity will guarantee a base level of free speech. Those that choose not to can fight off lawsuits like any other business.
What is the difference between “fundamental rights” and secondary rights?
Greg the Class Traitor- yes, the Hunter Biden laptop story was the canary in the coal mine and too many people just lived with it.
I think a state needs to pass some laws regulating the activity of Twitter, Google, Facebook, etc., and then we can create a case or controversy that could possibly reach the commerce clause. And make its way through the judicial system to the USSC.
But I'm no con law professor (ret.), I just like to play one of the real con law professor's blog.
Let's put it this way. Merkel is not concerned that Trump was cut off by Big Tech. Germany is more than happy to restrict people they don't like. However, she is concerned that Merkel could be cutoff by Big Tech whenever Big Tech decides they should be able to do so, and for that matter Big Tech can dictate the rules to the German government and not the other way around. Big Tech was so excited to get Trump that they did not realize that they just alienated everyone else in the room, who are now grasping for the cutlery. Or so we can hope.
On the other hand, China is probably pretty excited.
Oh well.
Freder Frederson said...
"For a bunch of people who regularly disdain any kind of government regulation or overreach, you don't seem to realize that "leave me alone" is a double edged sword."
What you fail to grasp. What you have consistently failed to grasp is that most of us are more than well aware of that fact and choose it anyway.
I once asked the Social Security Administration if I could have my money back. LOL
That was an interesting conversation.
Are people too young to remember that the government broke up Ma Bell for anti-trust violations? It's not like it's never been done before!
What nobody is talking about is the threat posed by big tech.
No one questions that if the internet goes down, it would be an economic and social disaster. The worst ever seen on the planet.
This power rests in the hands of a very few persons that are not accountable. The damage they are capable of far exceeds the power of the President of the United States.
D.D. Driver:
You're probably right. Or else break up the monopolies to make each segment and layer, more subject to competition. As it stands now, the size of capital requirements to make any kind of competitive effort is difficult to imagine
Angela Merkal not withstanding, sadly outside of conservative cicles I'm seeing little evidence that anyone cares that much about speech being supressed.
What you fail to grasp. What you have consistently failed to grasp is that most of us are more than well aware of that fact and choose it anyway.
Then why are you spending this thread bemoaning the foreseeable consequences of your disdain of government?
MayBee:
"and too many people just lived with it."
It started in March 2020. And, for the past 10 months...... lots of people more than willing to relinquish their rights in hopes of a $2000.00 check. If you can get an entire Nation to run around in (useless) masks, the skies the limit.
Freder Frederson said...For a bunch of people who regularly disdain any kind of government regulation or overreach...
1) Strawman--there aren't enough people in the country who regularly disdain any kind of government regulation to constitute a bunch even if you got them all together.
2) Is that an "oopsie!" admission? Did you just get dismissive of opposition to government overreach?
Get off Twitter.
Let it sink into leftwing only thought-crime group-think.
If you're one of those DEPLORABLES who thinks Twitter should be regulated, make this song a hit and I'll do another one about that, pronto.
I once asked the Social Security Administration if I could have my money back. LOL
That was an interesting conversation.
Because there exits no such thing as Social Security money. SCOTUS put this to rest a long time ago. They lie told to citizens is we all pay into social security. Social Security is not welfare because it is money you "pain into Social Security" and when you get old enough you start to get your money back.
No. We all pay an income tax based on our yearly wage. Not adjusted gross income, yearly wage.
The govt, separate from the tax paid every pay period, gives a monthly stipend to everyone that reaches a certain age. The amount is very loosely based on the amount of wage received.
SCOTUS has ruled that the govt is under no obligation to continue those payments.
Coming from a purported former Stasi informer, that's a big fucking deal : )
If you desire a truly unregulated social network free the the whims of either big government or big tech oversight the ultimate answer is a blockchain based distributed social network. There's been a few attempts at things like that over the years, diaspora is the most prevelent.
D.D. Driver said...Government directly regulating the internet is pretty bad idea.
Equal treatment is a lot less contentious than you want to pretend. Governments regularly require that businesses not discriminate based on political viewpoint. They must treat all customers equally. Very few people disagree with that idea.
I'd like to say I'm surprised that so many of the people who do disagree call themselves liberal, but I've seen enough of the world to not be surprised by that.
This power rests in the hands of a very few persons that are not accountable. The damage they are capable of far exceeds the power of the President of the United States.
Remember before the 2016 election when Twitter (and I think Amazon and Facebook?) were brought down reportedly by "the internet of things"- refrigerators, thermostats, etc, being hacked and taking them out?
It happened then it was over and nobody talked about it again, but I always wonder what that was about and why it wasn't a way bigger deal.
See this is a perfect post for a certain conlaw prof to reallu dig into. Where's the brilliant analysis?
Static Ping said...
Let's put it this way. Merkel is not concerned that Trump was cut off by Big Tech. Germany is more than happy to restrict people they don't like. However, she is concerned that Merkel could be cutoff by Big Tech whenever Big Tech decides they should be able to do so, and for that matter Big Tech can dictate the rules to the German government and not the other way around.
Yep, and not onlt Merkle.Any "leader" with common sense can see that their communication system can be shut down. Big tech has everybodies address and phone number, ss number, drivers license number and ability to ruin lives.
But the German Chancellor speaks of "fundamental rights."
And the conservatives had better start doing that too.
If you stop at the Constitution, you put your fundamental rights at the whims of John Roberts.
Governments all across the country right now are requiring that businesses stay closed or greatly reduce their capacity. Are you serious about this whole "Government shouldn't control businesses?????" at this moment in time?
I believe that Twiter and Facebook are publishers. And, like any other publisher (such as Simon and Schuster, or the New York Times), they must be held accountable for what they publish.
Do they publish libels? Then they can and should be sued for that.
Do they violate other people's copyrights?
Then the copyright owner must have every right to sue them, and collect.
No "oh, you caught me, so I'll stop for you" protections. You violate someone's copyright? You get sued. And pay.
No gov't "regulation", other than they have to follow the same laws that everyone else follows.
"But their business can't survive that!"
So?
Napster doesn't exist any more, because to exist it required the ability to violate other people's rights, and not be punished for it.
Twitter? Facebook? Google?
If those publishers' business models require that they be allowed to violate others' rights with impunity, then they need to go the way of Napster
The U.S. ain't the only legal jurisdiction that Twitter is subject to.
Other Big Tech has already faced huge monetary sanctions in Europe for anti-trade practices.
Full Moon: TRUTH !! Merkel cares about Merkel. She's much more self-centered and narcissistic than Trump.
The ACLU objections are the most significant. When the ACLU lines up side-by-side with Conservatives and Trumpists, that's when you know something big is going on.
The Big Tech Oligarchs hold monopoly power over the means of speech. There are statutes that should be enforced. I'm not holding my breath that the Democrats running the Justice Department will do the right thing or that the corrupt Press will hold the Democrats accountable. So what to do? No wonder people are considering extra-legal means.
@ Static Ping 12:43pm
I'm fine that Merkel and Germany act in their self-interest or even the interest of the greater EU. At least they recognize the threat to themselves if this cartel behavior isn't stopped. Sadly, many of our own countrymen and representatives don't get it at all. As long as they think their side won this one, they don't mind the future repercussions.
@Kevin:
And the conservatives had better start doing that too.
If you stop at the Constitution, you put your fundamental rights at the whims of John Roberts.
But what are fundamental rights? What makes one right more fundamental than another?
Governments regularly require that businesses not discriminate based on political viewpoint.
Not in this country, they don't. "Political viewpoint" is not a protected category under any civil rights law. If you are referring to television and radio, the government owns the airwaves.
The First Amendment protects freedom of speech - it does not create it.
Freedom of speech and the free marketplace of ideas, per se, is broader than simple non-interference from government. It extends to the whole of society. And it is just as essential to a free society and free people whether it is government or some powerful non-government force in society seeking to suppress it.
I believe that Twiter and Facebook are publishers. And, like any other publisher (such as Simon and Schuster, or the New York Times), they must be held accountable for what they publish.
Wouldn't that further limit speech? They would have an incentive to err on the side of even more draconian limits on speech.
"Other Big Tech has already faced huge monetary sanctions in Europe for anti-trade practices."
Someone on Twitter (forget who) made that point that a red state like Texas could pass a state law that would impose a $2 million fine (pick a large number) on Twitter every time they suspend or put warnings on things that are not normally seen to be illegal speech.
Yell fire!, etc....OK. But airing you opinion that the election was stolen or rigged would result in a hefty fine from that state.
Now if implemented I'm sure it would be argued up the Supreme Court (for all the good it would do), but at least it would draw greater attention to the issue.
They aren’t fundamental rights.
They are Natural Rights.
I don’t care if Merkel doesn’t understand the difference. I am mad that most Americans do not know how this works.
"the government owns the airwaves."
Meaning that they own the radio bandwidth on which your mobile phone runs.
Nature is fundamental.
A fundamental right is one that is grounded in the nature of the person.
Let's not get bogged down in stupid shit like that.
I've been critical of Merkel the Islamophile, but she's right on this one.
I did not know the ACLU was getting involved, and it rather surprises me.
Narr
In a good way
Mark said...
The First Amendment protects freedom of speech - it does not create it.
Freedom of speech and the free marketplace of ideas, per se, is broader than simple non-interference from government. It extends to the whole of society. And it is just as essential to a free society and free people whether it is government or some powerful non-government force in society seeking to suppress it.
Precisely.
The Constitution charges the government to protect the rights you already have as an individual.
The government is not reduced to a simple bystander as your rights are taken by means other than government action.
As to whether or not something will happen regarding big tech in the United States? I believe it when I see it. Big Tech donates huge sums of money to Democrats and the Democrats are going to be calling the shots for the forseeable future. What's more Democrats fully endorse the suppressing of speech they don't agree with anyway. So I expect another round of make-believe sideshow congressional hearings involing with Zuckerburg and Dorsey and the various congress critters. And at the end of all that theater nothing will come of it. Tedious.
What those of you who think this is what happens when people "disdain government overreach" don't seem to get is that this IS government overreach.
The 6 people who own the means of communication in the United States are now demonstrating that they are running the government formerly of the people, by the people for the people.
The communication oligarchs have censored the President of the United States and everyone else they want to censor because they are running the show. Nancy Pelosi and the rest of congress are currently allowed to go on pretending to be the government but they haven't done a single thing but shill for their actual masters for some time.
The free market had nothing to do with this as we haven't had a free market since bill written by lobbyists came to be.
It's oligarchs all the way down, folks.
Bake that cake, Apple, Google, and Amazon. You may disagree with what is being said, but tough beans.
Someone on Twitter (forget who) made that point that a red state like Texas could pass a state law that would impose a $2 million fine (pick a large number) on Twitter every time they suspend or put warnings on things that are not normally seen to be illegal speech.
Well "someone" doesn't know what the hell they are talking about. The courts we see that as regulating speech.
A law is due to be passed in Poland that would fine Big Tech firms $2.2 million every time they unconstitutionally censor lawful speech online.
Under its provisions, social media services will not be allowed to remove content or block accounts if they do not break Polish law.
I don’t think the fundamental rights problem arises until Trump’s term ends or he is removed from office. Until then he is the executive branch of government, Big Brother, and Big Tech is just refusing to rebroadcast Big Brother. Now I suppose one could argue that outside the U.S. Trump is not Big Brother. So I grant Merkel may have a point, in Germany.
>>If you stop at the Constitution, you put your fundamental rights at the whims of John Roberts.
I'm in favor of a massive expansion of the USSC to end this "one person swing vote" nonsense. If they want to be a super legislature, fine, let's elect them. One from each state, and decisions must be 2/3rds to be binding.
Pornhub will be the last place where an American can comment freely.
Discussion on government issues will most likely be connected to pegging videos.
I am Laslo.
"The Constitution charges the government to protect the rights you already have as an individual."
Mission Statement for the US Government:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...,
The Constitution recognizes the existence of additional rights. If the government isn't going to secure them, what is its purpose for existence?
J Farmer
"But what are fundamental rights? What makes one right more fundamental than another?"
You tell us. start with speech.
Discussion on Pelosi's latest maneuvers can be found in the comments of"Woah, Stepsister Are You Stuck?"
I am Laslo.
I think lots of Americans view rights as more like privileges that comes with having been born an American. That these rights come from, say, the Constitution, and not something that’s naturally inherent in all human beings.
Merkel & her fellow politicians have just discovered that the most powerful man in the world has been cut off from communicating with his constituents by arbitrary will of a few technocrats. What that tells every politician in the world is that if they fall afoul of the political will of the technocrats they will be shut down.
You don't think that they find this, to say the least, a very troubling development? How can they not?
"Pornhub will be the last place where an American can comment freely."
Are you a writer for the 'Babylon Bee'?
"I think lots of Americans view rights as more like privileges that comes with having been born an American. That these rights come from, say, the Constitution, and not something that’s naturally inherent in all human beings."
You can thank a teacher for that.
"The Kingdom of Speech is a critique of Charles Darwin and Noam Chomsky written by Tom Wolfe... Wolfe argues that speech, not evolution, sets humans apart from animals and is responsible for all of humanity's complex achievements." Link
In the beginning was the word...
To shut somebody up is as egregious as to deny nourishment... in my book.
YoungHegelian said...
Merkel & her fellow politicians have just discovered that the most powerful man in the world has been cut off from communicating with his constituents by arbitrary will of a few technocrats...
Great point.
Blogger Mark said...
Let's not get bogged down in stupid shit like that.
If you don’t understand the stupid shit then it is easier to ban speech you disagree with I guess.
What if Apple decided they could just stop letting their operating systems work on the laptops of people who express the wrong opinion?
no right — or even an interest in freedom of speech — that can be asserted against a private company like Twitter. But the German Chancellor speaks of "fundamental rights."
I have a quote stuck in my brain, and its been right in front of my conscience ever since.
Obama: we are going to fundamentally change the United States.
I mulled that over for days, and finally looked up 'fundamental'
"a central or primary rule or principle on which something is based."
Obama set out to change the primary rule on which the United States is based. The Constitution
D.D. Driver said...The most troubling overreaction was Apple. Apple now requires apps in its app store to censor users. In other words, if you want an uncensored social media platform you need to buy an entirely different phone.
An elderly neighbor is dying of cancer and wanted me to help her revive an older iPad. After trying with Apple techs on the phone three times, I gave up. Last not the neighbor gave me $1000 to go out and buy her a new tablet. I deliberately chose a Samsung Galaxy Tab S7. Vote with your dollars people. Or other people's dollars.
Freder: Wouldn't that further limit speech? They would have an incentive to err on the side of even more draconian limits on speech.
You mean it can get worse? Censoring the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES is not sufficient call for alarm? HOW CAN THIS POSSIBLY GET WORSE?!?!?!?! This is like Godzilla rampaging through the city and spending your time debating what would qualify as excessive force. We are long past whatever whatever quibbles you are obsessed with. If you want to be taken seriously, then do try to keep up.
The dirty secret is without the protections they have, Facebook and Twitter and Google/YouTube would go bankrupt almost immediately. There is absolutely no way to provide editorial oversight on the volume of content they routinely publish, which is why they have this protection. Otherwise they would be sued into oblivion in short order. At this point I would consider that a feature, not a bug.
Oh well.
I have utterly and completely stopped buying music from Apple's iTunes. I now stream what I like elsewhere.
Why would Israel or Taiwan want to allow their citizens to use any American Social media platform onw. Wouldn't they be better and more secure just turning off the social media lights at their edge router tonight? Don't delay. Mark and Jack want to manage your country for you. Major security threat for the rest of the world.
MayBee said...What if Apple decided they could just stop letting their operating systems work on the laptops of people who express the wrong opinion?
In theory that would be really bad PR. In reality, it depends on how deeply the CCP is embedded in Apple. I suspect quite deeply.
Richard Epstein's proposal to correct the Civil Rights law would fix it. Epstein says discrimination is legal except in monopoly markets, whether a state monopoly or a monopoly by private convention ("nice restaurant you have here, shame if you served blacks"). You get freedom of association except in monopoly markets.
The softening observation is that most businesses wanted to serve blacks but were prevented from doing so. Making discrimination illegal allowed them to ignore the private-force convention that had been threatening them.
Anyway, here is a private-force monopoly market; and so you don't get freedom of association and must serve all comers at a fair price, like a railroad or a power company must in a government monopoly.
So it's a civil rights problem. You can't go to another store, as Masterpiece Bakery would let you do, so you can't discriminate.
The 6 people who own the means of communication in the United States are now demonstrating that they are running the government formerly of the people, by the people for the people.
Yes, which is evidence that there exist monopolistic environment and practices. This is the distinction from other cases where expression is considered, but products and services are not similarly constrained. For decades, ostensibly with good intentions, we were lead down a false path.
On a related note, the Chinese Communist Party has evolved... progressed from the Great Leap to one-child to selective-child and rationalization of concentration camps for deplorables.
It's not exactly rule by technocrats. They're working with the left in government. It's still a question which will eat the other last.
The out here, a silly one but one that's been used against the flawed Civil Rights law, is religious belief. Just make Trump a religion and you've got an existing civil rights case.
Moving off the big social media platforms. They'll end up doxxing everyone.
Will I be given the opportunity to see what my social score is?
Wince said...
Would legislation requiring social media companies to seek governmental approval in an adversarial proceeding in order to ban people invoke 1st A protection via state action?
So it's a civil rights problem. You can't go to another store, as Masterpiece Bakery would let you do, so you can't discriminate.
Exactly! And to the extent you could, the cartel just removed the other "store" to prevent you from going there. We are beyond free speech discussions. This is a dissolution of free markets. Whether Twitter bans some topics is a minor inconvenience until they ban using a competitor that doesn't.
But what are fundamental rights?
The Framers began making a list.
It wasn't an exhaustive list, but it contained the rights that everyone in the room agreed were fundamental.
I am stunned by the lack of concern by "moderate" Liberals/Democrats (are there really any of those left) at the actions of Google, Twitter, and Amazon.
I recoil at the brazen use of power by these tech companies to conspire to silence dissenting voices.
I'm so old, I can remember when dissent was just and a patriotic duty.
They seem to have forgotten that the guillotine has an unquenchable hunger, and they may soon find themselves on the steps to the scaffold.
If the socials ban someone, they should pay compensation according to what that user was able to accrue for the company while the company got rich off the users eyeballs.
I've been married to twitter for over ten years. If they banned me, I should be entitled to something.
There is no fundamental right to free speech in Europe. In most places in Europe you can be sent to prison for a Facebook post.
"Pornhub will be the last place where an American can comment freely."
Oh, but that will be fun while it lasts. Deep fake videos of Pelosi pegging Schumer as vehicles to allow open comment sections. I'll have to get a new brush.
Blogger Left Bank of the Charles said...
I don’t think the fundamental rights problem arises until Trump’s term ends or he is removed from office. Until then he is the executive branch of government, Big Brother, and Big Tech is just refusing to rebroadcast Big Brother.
I have known for a while that you are a lefty but you didn't seem crazy before. This is really weird. I would say reality is the reverse. What has Trump done to limit your speech or sources of information?
@Gahrie,
There is no fundamental right to free speech in Europe. In most places in Europe you can be sent to prison for a Facebook post.
Absolutely correct, but that's the law for the peons. This time the technocrats targeted one of the World's Ruling Elite (i.e. the President of the USA). As much as the other Ruling Elite may have hated the upstart Trump, they still understand the power of the office he holds. There is nothing the world's political elite hate more than the thought that they can be pushed around by some bunch of grubby, social upstart merchants!
The feudal notion that it is repugnant the lords must bow to money runs deep in the world's elites, who, unlike the US, belong to countries with long histories where feudalism fundamentally shaped the idea of political governance.
Hmmm... a former East German concerned about the lives of others...
Old: First amendment rights exist to prevent the government from restricting speech.
New: Only the government can be trusted to properly restrict speech.
No country can let this happen to their own governments and leaders. It is unacceptable that even such a twat as Justin Trudeau could be cut off from Canadians by American companies, especially such dishonest ones. But our government and leaders use Twitter, Facebook, AWS, etc.
So that MUST change. And that is true of every country in the world.
As for the USA. You can try to treat Twitter etc as a public accommodation/common carrier but it won’t work. As long as they have the power there is a problem. It’s too late for anti trust. Nationalization is what’s left.
Gahrie said...
There is no fundamental right to free speech in Europe. In most places in Europe you can be sent to prison for a Facebook post.
I've lived in Yurp - right on the Alsatian French/German border even - and,...he's right.
"The Constitution charges the government to protect the rights you already have as an individual."
Mission Statement for the US Government:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...,
The Constitution recognizes the existence of additional rights. If the government isn't going to secure them, what is its purpose for existence?
Well first of all, you are conflating two entirely different things, seemingly on purpose.
Your quote that you label the "Mission Statement for the US Government" is from the Declaration of Independence, which had nothing to do with the American government. Indeed there was an entirely different US government in place between the Declaration of Independence, and our current Constitution that had little to do with either.
The Constitution does indeed recognize the existence of additional rights, rights possessed both by the people and the states. Your confusion is understandable, and not really your fault. You first have to realize that the Constitution was not originally intended to be a protection of rights, it was to be a limitation on government. originally the government was only to be allowed to do what the Constitution said it could do. Can the government take away guns? Does the Constitution say it can? Then no, the government can't. However the Anti-Federalists insisted on an enumeration of protected rights. (a huge mistake in my opinion) This resulted in the Bill of Rights, which fundamentally changed the entire nature of the Constitution. Now when the question of "if the government can do it" comes up, people think "does the Constitution say it can't?" when the question was supposed to be "Does the Constitution say it can?".
The fundamental purpose of government is to allow large numbers of humans to live in proximity. The fundamental purpose of a just government is to do so while protecting our rights.
Nazis still hold rallies, and chant and sing, long into the night.
I guess Twitter finally deigned to take down the Chi-Com Embassy's infamous "Uighar women baby making machine" Tweet. Of course personally I'd rather it be left up. Why should who the Chinese Communists truly are be hidden? But then again I'm not afraid of people seeing speech I may disagree with, unlike most people on the left evidently.
If social media can ban Donald Trump they can ban you. It seems Chancellor Merkel understands that simple thing.
"'This fundamental right can be intervened in, but according to the law and within the framework defined by legislators — not according to a decision by the management of social media platforms,' Merkel spokesman Steffen Seibert told reporters in Berlin."
Only governments, not social media platforms, can interfere with fundamental rights. Says Merkel, through a spokesman.
"Fundamental"... You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
1. The media will not report what he says accurately and completely.
2. The tech oligarchs have silenced him.
3. His press secretary is shunned by all but Fox News, which almost nobody watches.
Are you good with this America? Even east germans are feeling uneasy with the power of the tech oligarchs.
As long as they have the power there is a problem. It’s too late for anti trust. Nationalization is what’s left.
My initial gut reaction was to disagree. Anti trust will work...
But that was the good old days when the free markets were motive enough to assure corporations being self limiting in order to maximize profits.
The tech giants dont care about money. They care about power. Just look at Parler. Not only the tech giants, but all of the other vendors have refused to do business with Parler. Other server hosts, Banks/lenders, law firms. All the vendors are boycotting. All fearing they will be cancelled by twitter, etal.
@iowan2,
They care about power. Just look at Parler. Not only the tech giants, but all of the other vendors have refused to do business with Parler. Other server hosts, Banks/lenders, law firms. All the vendors are boycotting. All fearing they will be cancelled by twitter, etal.
So Parler gets taken down for "fomenting violence". Okay, one scalp for their side. But, what happens to Twitter, FB, et al. when it becomes clear via reams & reams of examples dredged up by right-wingers, that the other platforms have LOTS of advocates of violence. Which they do, and have had for years. What happens if it turns out a lot of the planning for Wednesday's March, and instant communications in the field, including for the riot, was done on FB?
It seems to me that the Tech Oligarchs have forged a rod for their own backs.
"Well first of all, you are conflating two entirely different things, seemingly on purpose."
Well first of all, you are breaking an idea down into entirely different things, seemingly on purpose.
Your quote that you label the "Mission Statement for the US Government" is from the Declaration of Independence, which had nothing to do with the American government. Indeed there was an entirely different US government in place between the Declaration of Independence, and our current Constitution that had little to do with either."
The Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation and Constitution are each separate documents but all were developed by basically the same group of people, with the same ultimate goals. Claiming that they had little to do with each other is just plain silly.
"The fundamental purpose of government is to allow large numbers of humans to live in proximity."
This looks suspiciously like a made-up purpose. Where, specifically, is the government tasked with this job?
"Twitter is now saying that anyone can come in, but only certain people are allowed to sit at the lunch counter."
It seems that there should be a disparate impact case.
"I am stunned by the lack of concern by "moderate" Liberals/Democrats (are there really any of those left)..."
This ain't your father's Democrat Party...
One of the biggest stories in years (Hunter's laptop) was almost completely disappeared in a COORDINATED effort by the media.
"Deep fake videos of Pelosi pegging Schumer as vehicles to allow open comment sections."
Who says they're fake?
Can you be a tyrant if you can be censored like this? No, the censors are the powerful tyrants.
For a bunch of people who regularly disdain any kind of government regulation or overreach, you don't seem to realize that "leave me alone" is a double edged sword.
But they're not leaving us alone. Why can't people like you see that? And why can't people like you understand if they can do it to us, they can do it to you, too?
Are you really that fucking thick?
Religion (i.e. moral philosophy) to moderate people capable of self-moderation. Competing interests to mitigate progress of everyone else.
that "leave me alone" is a double edged sword.
A double-edged scalpel, yes. However, "leave me alone" is limited in a single/central/monopolistic environment.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Unalienable... fundamental rights, that among these are Pro-Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
I'm so old I remember when Zuckerberg didn't want to censor speech.
Facebook says it will remove references to ‘stop the steal’ across its platform
Facebook says it will remove references to ‘stop the steal’ across its platform
So if the "Stop the steal" march was insurrection now being investigated by Congress as a crime committed by Trump; isn't Facebook announcing the destruction of evidence?
Twitter comment today on Powell Books' announcement that they will not carry or promote Andy Ngo's book on Antifa:
"'free speech' is what caused the insurrection. It's what caused nazi Germany."
What the Tech Giants failed to anticipate is that various non-American entities & unaffliliated tech entrepreneurs are horrified by their ability to collectively censor state politicians & undesirable content. Non Big Tech entrepreneurs are likely working furiously to create independent infrastructure such as platforms, servers, applications, etc. to decouple from Silicon Valley. The chatter is that they will also be recruited by state entities to create their own web communication infrastructure to never allow their political leaders or apparatus to be in Trump's predicament. Ex. China's independent web infrastructure.
@BidenFamilyTaxPayerFundedCrackPipe:
"But what are fundamental rights? What makes one right more fundamental than another?"
You tell us. start with speech.
I don't have an answer; I'm not the one using the phrase.
@Kevin:
The Framers began making a list.
It wasn't an exhaustive list, but it contained the rights that everyone in the room agreed were fundamental.
"The framers" had no such opinion. You think indictment by a grand jury or jury trials for civil lawsuits are "fundamental"? Why haven't they been incorporated against the states?
@n.n.:
Unalienable... fundamental rights, that among these are Pro-Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
But of course they are not unalienable.
If men were angels no government would be necessary, if men were devils no government could work. The underlying problem is a social one, too many people are listening to the devils on their shoulders and not their angels. They are giving in to their id and not following the superego. Freedom of Speech is a democratic value, (seemingly not a Democratic value anymore) that is why we have the first amendment to protect it against Government intrusion and it has done well generally. But because it is a societal value it should also affect how individual citizens and the individual people in control of private companies act in regards to other people's speech. Trying to shut someone up because you don't like what they say is almost never acceptable. Almost always the correct response to someone saying something you don't like is to either ignore it, argue against it, or mock it. The most frightening aspect of the Left is their authoritarian instincts when it comes to people saying things they don't agree with. They are becoming goose-stepping little fascists only they are wearing Birkenstocks instead of jackboots.
But of course they are not unalienable.
Isn't that the point though. That rights can be trampled on, or even ignored, but not taken away? Doesn't that concept mean that rights are a preexisting condition of being human. They are endowed in humanity by its creator, they are given by God, and as a consequence of that they are not given by Governments, and since they are not given by Governments, Governments can not, not give those rights to people.
As I’ve noted here from time to time, if a private purveyor of a public good (say, PG&E) terminated its services (in this case, gas and electricity) to a left-wing activist’s house in the middle of winter in retaliation for their political speech, we would all understand it as a violation of their civil liberties.
Where, specifically, is the government tasked with this job?
The same place where our lungs are tasked with breathing.
J. Farmer said...
But of course they are not unalienable.
The principle is that as a country when founded We decided there was a list of rights that was unalienable. Natural. Granted by a higher power.
These are all of course just words.
The question is whether or not you believe in a wordless truth that binds together humanity.
A belief that there is something higher than ourselves. Something to strive for. To be better in some way.
"I did not know the ACLU was getting involved, and it rather surprises me.
Narr
In a good way."
Don't assume it's a good way until you see whether or not they intentionally throw the case.
That's how these motherfuckers operate.
In fact I would strongly advocate that we do NOT allow the ACLU to head the effort to reverse this.
But, of course, we will, just like we always have.
@The Vault Dweller:
Isn't that the point though. That rights can be trampled on, or even ignored, but not taken away? Doesn't that concept mean that rights are a preexisting condition of being human. They are endowed in humanity by its creator, they are given by God, and as a consequence of that they are not given by Governments, and since they are not given by Governments, Governments can not, not give those rights to people.
Yes, I think that is a pretty accurate summation of of Enlightenment notions of natural law and social contract theory. I'm just very leery that such a notion can sustain a society.
Qwinn, who is the 'we' letting the ACLU lead?
Narr
Enlightenment is just all right with me
Google and Twitter don’t believe in fundamental rights, unless it is their right to profit fro seducing you to interact with them.
She gets it that she could be next.
Freedom of speech is a basic human right. The Constitution doesn't grant the right - it prohibits the government from infringing it. Just because its a private company doing it, doesn't mean its not a breach of human rights. Just means its not a breach of the constitution. And that assumes the corporations aren't doing at the behest of or in collusion with government. Which is itself questionable given the tweets from Democrats calling for BigTech to take this action.
@Achilles:
The principle is that as a country when founded We decided there was a list of rights that was unalienable. Natural. Granted by a higher power.
I think "we decided" is a bit of a stretch. The framers were elite men who established a state in the interest of elites. If the intent of the Constitution was to create a restrained national state with enumerated powers that would not subvert the will of the constituent states, then I think it's a fair assessment the Constitution failed.
Those new despised-by-environmentalists Arctic Refuge oil leases didn't get much play from oil companies. Too expensive to extract? Uncertain futures market? New Dem administration?
The point being, weeping and wailing never work as effectively as economic disinterest. Twitter's day will come. But it won't be until advertisers abandon it for another venue.
Post a Comment